Case 6004196/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. S. Wiltshire v Bath Spa University Students Union — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004196/2024
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. S. Wiltshire
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Senior Finance Co-ordinator and was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent identified discrepancies between her manual flexi-timesheets and IT/system logs, particularly on work-from-home days. The claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal, which the respondent resisted on the basis that the dismissal was for conduct and was fair.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had falsified working time for which she was paid. It found the procedure reasonable, including the provision of evidence, time to prepare, adjustments for illness, and consideration at appeal.
The tribunal concluded that summary dismissal for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses. The claim of unfair dismissal was therefore unfounded and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The provided judgment text is truncated, but the visible reserved judgment and conclusion state that the unfair dismissal claim was unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- range of reasonable responses
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.