Case 6002933/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Robert Bennett v Anderstore Ltd Heard: in Leeds on 11 and 12 December 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002933/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Robert Bennett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningReserved judgment of a one-judge hearing at Leeds. The claimant was employed as a Senior Fire Extinguisher Sales and Service Engineer from March 2016 to 6 March 2024 when he was dismissed for gross misconduct following an incident on 9 February 2024. The tribunal viewed CCTV footage of the incident and listened to an extract of the disciplinary hearing recording.
The tribunal found the claimant had attended a customer's premises in a company-branded van and clothing, parked in a non-designated area, and following a verbal altercation with another driver, had repeatedly punched and kicked the man. The respondent was entitled to conclude that the claimant had brought himself and the company into disrepute and engaged in physical assault while representing the company. The tribunal noted the claimant showed no remorse, took no accountability and gave no reassurance that he would not act in the same way again. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses (s.98(4) ERA 1996).
On the commission claim for February 2024 (pursued as both unauthorised deductions and breach of contract), the tribunal found the commission scheme rules in the Service Engineers' Handbook clearly conditioned eligibility on not being found guilty of any disciplinary offence and entitled the respondent to withhold payment pending disciplinary proceedings; the gross misconduct finding meant the claimant had forfeited entitlement to commission. Both commission claims failed. The NMW and mobile phone deduction claims were dismissed on withdrawal after the respondent made payments during the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found dismissal for gross misconduct (assault on a member of public on customer site while in branded company uniform/van) was within the range of reasonable responses. PDF truncated from 46,193 characters. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Commission for February 2024 - claim not well-founded; tribunal found the commission scheme rules clearly forfeited entitlement on a finding of gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for the same February 2024 commission also failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | National Minimum Wage non-payment claim dismissed on withdrawal after the respondent had paid the relevant sums. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | £188 mobile telephone deduction claim dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant returned the mobile phone and the respondent paid the £188 during the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
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.