Case 3331037/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Olive v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331037/2018
- Decision date
- 17 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Representation
- Venue
- Cambridge Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Olive
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Olive was unfairly dismissed by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited. The judgment records the decision only, with reasons having been given orally and no written reasons included in the supplied text.
The tribunal found that, if a fair procedure had been adopted, there was a 50% chance that the claimant would still have been fairly dismissed. It also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal by his own fault, assessing the level of contribution at 50%.
The claimant had requested reinstatement or re-engagement. The tribunal directed that remedy would be considered at a remedy hearing on 17 June 2019, so no monetary award is set out in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, with remedy to be considered at a later hearing. It also records a 50% chance that the claimant would still have been fairly dismissed had a fair procedure been adopted, and a 50% contributory fault assessment. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.