Case 3302573/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Elliott, friend of Claimant For the v Mr C Wood, solicitor — 2026
- Case reference
- 3302573/2025
- Decision date
- 27 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Elliott, friend of Claimant For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after an incident in which the respondent concluded that he had physically assaulted another employee. The disciplinary decision-maker relied on CCTV footage and witness statements, and rejected the claimant's account that he had merely restrained the other employee or acted in self-defence.
The tribunal found that conduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal, that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt, and that the belief was based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. It found that the respondent was not required to investigate in detail what the other employee may have said beforehand because that did not justify the physical assault found by the respondent.
The tribunal accepted that there were mitigating factors, including the claimant's long association with the respondent and the context of the incident, but held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the respondent. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable sanctions
- range of reasonable responses
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.