Case 3307084/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sean D’Auvergne v Metroline Travel Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307084/2020
- Decision date
- 1 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Poynton
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sean D’Auvergne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim despite the claimant's late witness statement and attempted late bundle. It found that a fair hearing could still take place, with additional reading time and reasonable supplemental questions, and that striking out would be disproportionate.
The claimant was dismissed without notice after posting a Facebook comment in a London bus drivers' group about Mr O'Neil Lewis, Arriva, and the respondent. The Tribunal found that the respondent dismissed him for conduct, namely posting comments on social media that were seen as threatening to a third party and bringing the respondent into disrepute, rather than because he had brought an earlier Employment Tribunal claim.
Applying the unfair dismissal framework, the Tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It also found that the respondent followed a fair procedure, considered the mitigation raised by the claimant at the disciplinary and appeal stages, and that summary dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and issues of Polkey, contributory fault and ACAS uplift did not need to be decided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant confirmed that he was not bringing a claim for unpaid wages and that the claim before the Tribunal was for unfair dismissal only. The respondent's strike-out application was dismissed, but the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Burchell test
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Britobabapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
- Software 2000 v Andrews
- Hill v Governing Body of Great Tey Primary School
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No. 2)
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.