Case 3303750/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr L Varnam, Counsel For the v Mr J Pettican, Director — 2019

Case reference: 3303750/2019
Decision date: 20 December 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
Venue: Cambridge

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L Varnam, Counsel For the

Respondent

Mr J Pettican, Director

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a gardener/handyman from 19 March 2015 until he was dismissed on 2 November 2018. The Respondent said the dismissal was for gross misconduct connected with time recording discrepancies and related conduct issues; the Claimant said he was dismissed without being told the reason and without any fair process. The tribunal accepted that the Respondent had a disciplinary procedure, but found there was no proper investigation, no notification of an investigatory or disciplinary process, and no contemporaneous documentation showing that the alleged concerns had been formally addressed before dismissal.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the Respondent had not shown reasonable grounds for believing the Claimant had committed misconduct. It found that management had jumped to conclusions from time sheet and clock card discrepancies, without exploring other explanations, and that the reasons advanced for dismissal shifted during the hearing and in correspondence. The Claimant was told verbally that he was “finished as of today” and was not given the reason at the time. The later letter of 19 December 2018 confirmed dismissal for gross misconduct, but that did not cure the earlier failure to follow a fair process. The tribunal held the dismissal was within neither the Respondent’s disciplinary procedure nor the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal rejected any reduction for contributory fault and said a Polkey reduction was not appropriate because this was not a case where dismissal was inevitable. It also found that the Respondent failed to comply with the Acas Code of Practice and applied a 20% uplift to any remedy under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. On the wrongful dismissal / breach of contract claim, the tribunal found there was no repudiatory breach by the Claimant that justified summary dismissal without notice. The judgment was liability only and directed that the case be listed for a separate remedy hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair because the Respondent did not carry out a reasonable investigation, did not tell the Claimant the reason for dismissal before or at the time of dismissal, and did not follow its disciplinary procedure or the Acas Code. Remedy was adjourned to a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held the Claimant was not guilty of conduct amounting to a repudiatory breach and so was wrongfully dismissed without notice. Remedy was not determined in this judgment.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

12 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.