Case 3304959/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304959/2023
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed by the Respondent NHS Trust as a Paramedic and was dismissed following disciplinary allegations concerning a repurposed email. The Tribunal found that the Respondent dismissed him for conduct, a potentially fair reason under section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief after a thorough investigation, including forensic examination of the email evidence. It rejected the Claimant's alternative explanation as speculative and found no procedural shortcomings in the disciplinary process.
The Tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses in all the circumstances. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, and the Tribunal stated that remedy was not an issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that unfair dismissal was the only claim before the Tribunal and that all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable belief after reasonable investigation
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.