Case 3304574/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Paul v Morrison Data Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304574/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wilson Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Paul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered a single claim of unfair dismissal. Dismissal was not disputed, and the Respondent relied on conduct as the potentially fair reason, described as gross misconduct.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had investigated and relied on material including staff interviews, welfare and occupational health meetings, trading review meetings, performance and appraisal records, sickness records and compliance reports. It rejected the Claimant's complaints that he had not received adequate documentary evidence or consultation, and found that he had been able to attend hearings, make representations and appeal.
The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant's conduct caused significant operational disruption, including payroll issues and risks to contractual performance. It found that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer, and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that there were no other claims before the Tribunal. The supplied PDF text was truncated, but the opening judgment and closing conclusion both state that the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s98(2) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- 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.