Case 3308216/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308216/2023
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Langton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a firefighter and crew commander, was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct after remarks made at a meeting on 22 December 2022 relating to a female member of the public whose rescue he had been involved in. He accepted misconduct and that the conduct was the reason for dismissal, but argued that summary dismissal was not an appropriate sanction and that the disciplinary process was flawed.
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because of the cumulative effect of procedural and decision-making features, including reliance on material that should have been disregarded, findings about the comments and their seriousness, and the approach to mitigation and prior matters. The tribunal concluded that no reasonable employer would have dismissed in those circumstances.
No Polkey reduction was made because the tribunal considered that assigning a percentage chance of fair dismissal would be speculative. The tribunal found the claimant's conduct was blameworthy and contributed to the dismissal, and held it just and equitable to reduce both the compensatory and basic awards by 65%, with remedy to be addressed separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded. Remedy was not determined in this reserved judgment; separate directions were to be issued for a remedy hearing. The prompt text is truncated, but includes the judgment outcome and final conclusions. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey
- Hollier
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.