Case 3310432/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Kohanzad, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 3310432/2023
Decision date: 10 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Postle Appearances

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr Kohanzad, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant was employed as a support worker following a TUPE transfer and was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after challenging rota, pay and holiday issues. The tribunal found that the emails relied on by the respondent were not offensive, rude, intimidatory or unprofessional when assessed objectively.

The tribunal found that the investigation was poor and one sided, including because the claimant was not interviewed about the allegations and there were no notes of the investigator's discussion with the manager who complained about the emails. It also found the appeal did not deal with the grounds of appeal and amounted to rubber stamping the dismissal decision.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the British Home Stores v Burchell principles, the tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the claimant had committed gross misconduct, that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses, and that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The unpaid wages claim had been withdrawn because the sums due had been paid.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was left for discussion or a separate remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The judgment states the unpaid wages claim was withdrawn at the outset of proceedings because the sums due had been paid.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.