Case 3307752/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Miss S David, Counsel — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307752/2023
- Decision date
- 14 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedIn person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Alliott, sitting alone, found that the claimant - a Market Place Manager running two betting shops - was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The Tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was gross misconduct (a potentially fair reason) and that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, but found that this conclusion was not on reasonable grounds and that no employer acting reasonably would have treated the circumstances as a sufficient reason to dismiss.
The Tribunal found the matters relied on - leaving early, not escalating one PTL breach and limited picking up of responsible-gambling triggers - were relatively trivial; missing the Hard Stop threshold for one customer over an unusual short period of one hour twenty minutes was a clear error but the consequences had not been spelt out to employees, and the customer's exceptionally rapid wagering was atypical. The claimant's long service and exemplary record were not sufficiently taken into account, and the decision to dismiss was outside the range of reasonable responses.
PDF text was truncated; remedy figures were not stated in the available text.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.