Case 3220569/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Philip Smith v Swann Engineering Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3220569/2020
- Decision date
- 15 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Members
- Panel members
- Mr M Wood, Mr D Hurrell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Philip Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Smith, a welder aged 58, was dismissed on 21 August 2020 after an altercation on 11 August 2020 with Kelvin Fleuty over a first-aid issue. The tribunal found that Mr Fleuty confronted Mr Smith in a small office, shouted at close quarters, and that Mr Smith pushed him away with his forearm; Mr Fleuty then punched Mr Smith in the jaw. The respondent treated the incident as gross misconduct and dismissed summarily without notice, and the appeal was rejected on 4 September 2020.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had a potentially fair conduct reason and a genuine belief in misconduct, with a reasonable investigation, so the Burchell test was met. However, the dismissal was still unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the decision-makers wrongly treated the gross misconduct policy as requiring automatic dismissal, failed to give proper weight to mitigation, and conducted an unfair appeal. Rachel Nash was refused as companion, and Mr Carlton wrongly thought a companion could only listen and could not present the appeal, question witnesses, or sum up. The tribunal found that a fair procedure would not have led to dismissal, so there was no Polkey reduction, but it reduced compensation by one third for contributory conduct because Mr Smith started the row and used force in pushing Mr Fleuty away.
The disability discrimination claim was limited to the appeal stage and was dismissed. A previous hearing had found that Mr Smith became disabled by mental health problems from 24 August 2020, after the dismissal, and the tribunal held it was unrealistic to say the appeal manager could have known that he was disabled or that his condition would last 12 months. The judgment also records a basic award of £4,325.52, damages for wrongful dismissal of £4,838.16, a pre-cap compensatory award of £29,347.03, and a final award of £34,290.08 after the compensation cap was applied. Schedule 2 applied the Recoupment Regulations and identified a prescribed element of £19,499.73 and a balance of £14,790.35.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It found the respondent had a genuine conduct reason and a reasonable investigation, but treated gross misconduct as requiring automatic dismissal, failed to weigh mitigation, and ran an unfair appeal process, including excluding Rachel Nash as companion and wrongly limiting a companion's role. Schedule 1 records a basic award of £4,325.52 and a compensatory award of £29,347.03 before the overall compensation cap was applied. | Upheld | — | £33,673 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment awarded notice pay / damages for wrongful dismissal. Paragraph 66 refers to £3,865.60, but Schedule 1 item 3 records damages for wrongful dismissal at £4,838.16, which is the figure used in the final award summary. | Upheld | — | £4,838 |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim, including the complaint about the appeal and reasonable adjustments, was dismissed. The tribunal held that Mr Smith's disability arose only after dismissal and that it was unrealistic to say the appeal decision-maker knew or should have known of it at the appeal hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £34,290
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,326
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £29,347
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey reduction
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Igen v Wong / Madarassy burden of proof
- Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.