Case 3312912/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Michael Sims v L M Technologies Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312912/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shrimplin Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Michael Sims
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMichael Sims brought a claim for unfair dismissal arising from the termination of his employment as managing director of L M Technologies Ltd in August 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent had lost trust and confidence in him as managing director for the future, and that this was the real reason for dismissal. It held that the reason fell within some other substantial reason under s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996, rather than being framed as a conduct dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for some other substantial reason, namely loss of trust and confidence, and held it was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Perkin v St George's Healthcare Trust
- Huggins v Micrel Semiconductor (UK) Ltd
- Leach v Ofcom
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Sainsburys Supermarkets v Hitt
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.