Mr P Smith v British Gas Services Limited — 2026

Mr Smith was employed by British Gas Services Limited as a Technical Repair Engineer from 3 May 2004 until his summary dismissal on 26 February 2024. The tribunal found that he removed items from a skip at the premises of one of the respondent's suppliers, Vaillant, without permission, and accepted evidence that he told Stephen Lawes he intended to break down boilers and sell parts on eBay. It found he was not transparent about all the items taken and took no steps to return them until 15 January 2024 after the amnesty had expired.

The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It found the disciplinary process conducted by Keith Cook was fair, the appeal was considered by Thomas Crockett, and the respondent was entitled to conclude that the claimant had committed theft from Vaillant, brought the respondent into disrepute, and breached the Code of Conduct. The tribunal found the claimant's position was materially different from Stephen Lawes because Mr Lawes complied with the amnesty, so this was not inconsistent treatment.

The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal concluded that the claimant committed an act of gross misconduct and was therefore not entitled to notice pay.

The disability discrimination claim was pleaded as a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, relying on multiple sclerosis and the alleged PCP of a one-day deadline for the amnesty. The tribunal dismissed the claim because it found there was no PCP, the alleged PCP was an artificial construct from a one-off instruction, the claimant had not shown substantial disadvantage or how the proposed adjustment would alleviate it, the respondent had no knowledge giving rise to a duty to make reasonable adjustments, and an extension to the amnesty would not have been reasonable in any event. The tribunal recorded that a section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim was not pleaded, no application to amend was made, and any such application would have been refused applying Selkent guidance.