Case 6005372/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Esbon Riley v St Pancras Hotel Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6005372/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Esbon Riley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after an incident on 20 March 2024. The tribunal found that he refused to wash two trays when asked and told his line manager to "fuck off". The respondent treated the matter as gross misconduct, relying on failure to follow a reasonable management instruction and abusive language.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair conduct reason, had reasonable grounds after investigation, and that the procedure and dismissal sanction were within the band of reasonable responses. On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct was seriously incompatible with his contractual duties and was repudiatory, so he was not entitled to notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint of wrongful dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it; the claimant's conduct was found to be repudiatory so as to deprive him of the right to notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey / just and equitable deduction
- contributory fault
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- statutory cap
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.