Case 3302777/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Pipkin v Hollowells Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3302777/2025
- Decision date
- 24 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Smith
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Pipkin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was an employee at the relevant time and that the claim for unfair dismissal could proceed. The claimant had worked for the respondent in different roles before being summarily dismissed on 8 April 2025 after concerns about his conduct.
The tribunal found that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was conduct. It also stated that, if that was wrong, the reason or principal reason was some other substantial reason, namely the breakdown in the working relationship between the respondent and the claimant.
The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses available to the respondent. It found that the respondent's investigation and disciplinary procedure was fair in light of the size and resources of the business, and 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 claimant's unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- band 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.