Case 3313297/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Brown v Elevator Engineering Services (UK) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313297/2019
- Decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Raymond Brown brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal by Elevator Engineering Services (UK) Ltd on 12 October 2018, after having worked for the respondent since September 2006 and having held the role of commercial director since April 2009. The respondent said the dismissal was for conduct, or alternatively some other substantial reason, and relied on allegations concerning P11D matters, health and pension benefits, and scrap metal dealings. The tribunal found that Mr Henderson, the respondent’s director, had taken over the investigation and disciplinary process himself and that this was relevant to the fairness assessment.
The tribunal preferred the claimant’s evidence to that of the respondent on the disputed background facts. It found that Mr Henderson was intent on removing the claimant from the business and that the later disciplinary process formed part of that course of conduct. On the specific allegations, the tribunal found no credible evidence that the claimant had done anything wrong in relation to the P11D matters, no credible evidence of misconduct in relation to the health and pension arrangements, and no credible evidence that the claimant had personally benefited from scrap steel transactions.
Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that the respondent had not shown a genuine belief in misconduct, had not had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had not carried out a reasonable investigation. It also found that there was no good reason for convening a disciplinary hearing on extremely short notice in relation to matters said to stretch back many years, and that the appeal did not rectify the unfairness because it was conducted by the same decision-maker. The alternative case that dismissal was for some other substantial reason was not pursued in submissions and was not accepted on the findings made. The claim of unfair dismissal therefore succeeded, and the remedy hearing was listed for 21 June 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment only; remedy was reserved to a hearing listed for 21 June 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Sheffield Health Social Care NHS Foundation Trust v Crabtree
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.