Case 3301452/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person / assisted by Ms. K. Grand (the claimant’s former partner) For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301452/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr.
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mrs A. Buck, Ms. J Nicholas
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person / assisted by Ms. K. Grand (the claimant’s former partner) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after an incident on 14 June 2023 in which the respondent found that he took a member of the public's phone and threw it away. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant did grab and throw away the phone, and that this was gross misconduct. The breach of contract claim for notice pay was therefore dismissed.
The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded on procedural grounds. The tribunal found multiple procedural failures, including aspects of the disciplinary and appeal process, and concluded that the procedure was outside the band of reasonable responses. It also stated that dismissal itself was within the range of reasonable responses for the misconduct found.
The respondent conceded that the claimant had PTSD and was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The section 15 disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The reasonable adjustments claim was also dismissed because, although the tribunal considered that conflict management training and guidance would have been a reasonable adjustment, the complaint was presented considerably out of time and there was no adequate basis to extend time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint concerned notice pay. The tribunal found the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and that the respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair on procedural grounds. It also stated that dismissal would have been within the range of reasonable responses as a sanction for the misconduct found. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint. The tribunal found the proposed adjustment would otherwise have been well founded, but dismissed the complaint as out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- balance of probabilities
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- repudiatory breach of contract
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe 2016 ICR 305
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.