Case 6007401/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K James v Hunslet Ltd and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007401/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Booth REPRESENTATION
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr K James
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Hunslet Ltd unfairly dismissed the claimant because it failed to comply with parts of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. The procedural unfairness related to the disciplinary process, but the tribunal found that if a more reasonable procedure had been followed the respondent would have reached the same decision to dismiss by no later than 28 June 2024.
The tribunal found that the claimant's driving in excess of lawful speed limits on multiple occasions, including speeds of up to 105mph in a company vehicle, was culpable and blameworthy conduct. It reduced both the basic award and compensatory award by 100%, resulting in no monetary award.
The tribunal dismissed the notice pay claim. It concluded that the claimant's actions amounted to gross misconduct, fundamentally breached the contract of employment, and released the respondent from the obligation to give notice or pay in lieu of notice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded because of procedural non-compliance with the ACAS Code, but found a 100% chance of fair dismissal in any event and reduced both basic and compensatory awards by 100% for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as breach of contract in relation to notice pay and also addresses it as wrongful dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and released the respondent from the obligation to give notice or pay in lieu of notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98(1) and 98(2) ERA
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
- section 1 ERA 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.