Case 3304011/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Jallow v Marks and Spencer plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304011/2024
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Jallow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal after being dismissed for alleged gross misconduct. At the hearing, an application to amend the claim to add unpaid wages, sex discrimination, race discrimination and disability discrimination was refused because the proposed amendment did not set out a basis for concluding that any alleged detriment arose from a protected characteristic.
The tribunal found that the respondent investigated complaints against the claimant, invited him to a disciplinary hearing, and considered the allegations as potential gross misconduct. It accepted that there were some procedural points raised by the claimant, but concluded that the investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable overall and that any failure to interview further potential witnesses was not fatal to fairness.
The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer and that the appeal process considered the claimant's appeal points. Having regard to section 98(4), the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant applied to amend to add unpaid wages and discrimination complaints, but the application was refused. The judgment adjudicated the complaint of unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 98(4)
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.