Case 3322506/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Max Lansman, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322506/2021
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr I Middleton, Mr T Poil
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Max Lansman, of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Norman and Mr Gibbons were dismissed with immediate effect on 22 July 2021 after an investigation into alleged misconduct and the events of 3 and 4 June 2021. The tribunal also considered, but refused, a late proposed amendment to add a section 44(1)(c) claim because, on the facts it found, such a claim could not succeed.
On the section 44(1A)(b) detriment claims, the tribunal held that there were not circumstances of danger which the claimants reasonably believed to be serious and imminent on 4 June 2021. For the same reason, Mr Norman's section 100(1)(e) automatic unfair dismissal claim failed.
On the section 98 claims, the tribunal found that Mr Paul and Ms Black genuinely believed the misconduct allegations, that the respondent had reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigations and dismissals were within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Both claimants' detriment claims under section 44(1A)(b) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Norman's automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(e) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Both claimants' ordinary unfair dismissal claims under section 98 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.44(1A)(b) ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
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.