Case 6010676/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Samuel Shiels v Marks and Spencer plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010676/2024
- Decision date
- 8 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Samuel Shiels
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Shiels's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. Marks and Spencer PLC dismissed him for misconduct on 26 June 2024 after finding that, once his suspension had been lifted, he remained absent without authority, did not provide requested fit notes and did not maintain agreed contact. The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed he had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation, followed a fair disciplinary and appeal process, and reached a decision within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that Mr Shiels knew his suspension had ended and had been told to return to work on 13 January 2024. It rejected his case that he remained suspended or intended to return on 24 April, finding that he chose not to return until the disciplinary and grievance issues were resolved, refused to provide fit notes and continued working 40 hours a week for another employer. A live final written warning could reasonably be taken into account. Although the respondent should have heard his appeal against that warning and its failure to do so breached the ACAS Code, the warning had been issued in good faith on prima facie grounds and was not manifestly inappropriate. The tribunal said in the alternative that any basic and compensatory awards would have been reduced by 100% for contributory conduct.
The wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay was upheld on the respondent's admission that Mr Shiels was entitled to notice pay and that the salary overpayment had been written off. This was so despite the tribunal's finding that his conduct could theoretically have amounted to a repudiatory breach. The amount of notice pay was not decided and the claim was adjourned to a remedy hearing listed for 8 June 2026.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed because there was no evidence that Mr Shiels was owed arrears of pay. The tribunal found that the evidence instead showed he had been overpaid while absent without authority. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice-pay claim succeeded on the respondent's admission and was adjourned for a remedy hearing. Paragraph 119 says the claimant was "not wrongfully dismissed" but immediately states that his breach of contract notice-pay claim was well-founded; the operative judgment and paragraph 117 confirm that the claim succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses test
- s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Wincanton Group plc v Stone and Davies v Sandwell MBC approach to final written warnings
- Neary v Dean of Westminster gross misconduct test
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.