Case 3310801/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Himself, as a litigant in person For the v Mr D Wright, Managing Director — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310801/2023
- Decision date
- 11 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Conley Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Himself, as a litigant in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed summarily for misconduct after failing to comply with the agreed absence reporting procedure. The tribunal accepted that misconduct was the reason for dismissal, that the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, and that the investigation and disciplinary procedure were within the band of reasonable responses.
The tribunal found the claimant knew and had previously followed the reporting procedure, and it did not accept that the failure to communicate was merely an oversight. It concluded that summary dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. The holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages claims were not particularised or supported by evidence and were also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay and dismisses it as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- British Home Stores v Burchell
- band of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsburys Supermarket Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance NHS Trust v Small
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.