Case 6018181/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Hehir v Metroline Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018181/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrison Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Hehir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a bus driver, was dismissed without notice after an incident on 25 June 2024 in which he left the bus, pursued a third party who had taken a passenger's necklace, and later hit the third party. The respondent treated three allegations as gross misconduct: bringing the company into disrepute, physically assaulting and injuring a passenger, and failing to protect his and passengers' safety by leaving the bus unattended with the engine running.
The Tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a fair and reasonable investigation. It found that the claimant had been able to put his case, that his explanations and disciplinary record were considered, and that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Because the claim failed on liability, the Tribunal did not determine remedy adjustments and stated that the listed remedy hearing was not required.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey
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.