Case 4100641/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Nelson v Represented by: Mr F Tait - Solicitor SWAT International Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 4100641/2026
- Decision date
- 3 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluskey
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Nelson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's breach of contract and holiday pay complaints were withdrawn at the outset and dismissed. His unfair dismissal complaint was upheld. The Tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely that on 18 November 2025 the claimant had straddled and traversed the respondent's roof while carrying out power-washing work, and that Mr Kelly genuinely believed this amounted to misconduct.
Applying the Burchell test, the Tribunal found that Mr Kelly did not have reasonable grounds for that belief and that no reasonable investigation had taken place. Other employees had previously worked in direct contact with the roof without being disciplined or dismissed, and the claimant had been sent to perform further work at height on the two days following the incident. The claimant was dismissed without being given the allegations and supporting material, without a disciplinary hearing or an opportunity to state his case, and without the promised written appeal decision. Summary dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
The Tribunal declined to reduce compensation for failure to mitigate, finding that the claimant had not acted unreasonably by starting his new employment on 12 January 2026 after his customary festive-period holiday. It also made no Polkey deduction because it could not conclude that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event, and made no reduction for contributory conduct. It accepted that the claimant had worn PPE, including a safety harness secured to the roof ladder, and found that he had not caused or contributed to his dismissal.
The Tribunal found that none of the ACAS Code procedures had been followed and that the failure, extending from investigation through appeal, was deliberate and unreasonable. It applied a 25% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The dispositive judgment ordered a basic award of £5,033, a compensatory award of £9,250.59 comprising £7,400.47 for lost wages plus the uplift, and £500 for loss of statutory rights, totalling £14,783.59. The recoupment regulations did not apply because the claimant had received no state benefits because of his dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal ordered £5,033 as a basic award, £9,250.59 as a compensatory award including a 25% ACAS uplift, and £500 for loss of statutory rights. Paragraph 67 calculated the basic award as £5,055, but the judgment and concluding order both specify £5,033. | Upheld | — | £14,784 |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn by the claimant at the outset of the hearing and dismissed by the Tribunal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Withdrawn by the claimant at the outset of the hearing and dismissed by the Tribunal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,784
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,033
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,251
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- mitigation test in Gardiner-Hill v Roland Berger Technics Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- University of Exeter v Dr Annette Plaut ACAS Code factors
- s.123(6) ERA 1996 contributory conduct
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.