Case 3304272/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Craig Woodward v Great Yarmouth Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304272/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Craig Woodward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegations concerning inappropriate behaviour towards or about members of the public, unauthorised collection of commercial trade waste, and misappropriation of company property. The tribunal recorded that some allegations were admitted, including inappropriate language and taking items from GY News, and that no sanction was imposed on the company property allegation because the disciplinary officer accepted the claimant had acted with the best of intentions.
The tribunal found that the respondent's disciplinary procedure identified conduct of this kind as potentially amounting to gross misconduct. It held that the respondent's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, taking account of the claimant's admissions, his false or misleading account during the investigation, the lack of sufficiently comparable evidence of different treatment, and the information available to the respondent at the time.
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was fair and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 94 ERA 1996
- Section 98 ERA 1996
- Section 98(4) ERA 1996
- 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.