Rebecca Smith v The Rising Sun Limited — 2026

The Claimant, Rebecca Smith, was employed as a bartender by The Rising Sun (Church Gresley) Ltd until her summary dismissal on 23 January 2025. At the start of the hearing she withdrew any live wrongful dismissal complaint, after the tribunal explained the consequence of withdrawal, and that complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining complaint was unfair dismissal arising from the respondent's decision to dismiss her for conduct which Mr Simpson considered to be gross misconduct.

The tribunal found that the respondent had shown conduct as the reason for dismissal and that this was a potentially fair reason under s.98 ERA 1996. It accepted that Mr Simpson genuinely believed the Claimant had processed incorrect till transactions, taken products without payment, added credit to her account for drinks not paid for by customers, and obtained loyalty points through misuse of the loyalty card scheme. The tribunal also found that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, based on till records and CCTV discrepancies, and that the conduct alleged was capable of amounting to gross misconduct if established.

The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded because the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation and had not acted in a procedurally fair manner. The Claimant was first given specific details of some allegations during a short meeting at her home on 23 January 2025, while distressed, without prior written allegations, without the evidence, without a disciplinary hearing, without a reasonable opportunity to prepare or obtain evidence, and without any appeal. The tribunal held that these failures, including breaches of paragraphs 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the ACAS Code of Practice, were basic and fundamental failures and made the dismissal unfair.

The tribunal found that dismissal would have been within the range of reasonable responses for an employer that genuinely believed the alleged conduct had occurred. For remedy purposes, it found a 75% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed after a fair process, and it also found blameworthy conduct justifying a 75% reduction to the basic award. To avoid double counting, it held that no further compensatory reduction beyond 75% was just and equitable. It also held that a 15% uplift to the compensatory award was just and equitable because of the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code. Monetary remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later remedy hearing.