Case 6019039/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Abdullahi Aden v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019039/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Da Costa
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Abdullahi Aden
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Device Support Technician in pathology IT employed since September 2013, was dismissed on 6 August 2024 following allegations of unauthorised remote access to a senior scientist's PC and unauthorised changes to her Winpath password. The Tribunal, applying the Burchell test as elaborated for the facts of this case, found that the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on reasonable grounds and following a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore not well founded and was dismissed.
On wrongful dismissal, the Tribunal found that although the respondent had the contractual right under clause 19 to dismiss summarily for gross misconduct, it had in fact elected to terminate the contract on notice, as evidenced by the dismissal letter stating the claimant was "entitled to 6 weeks full pay notice period". Having elected to continue the contract on notice, the respondent was bound by the contractual notice provisions, which entitled the claimant to 10 weeks' notice rather than the 6 weeks paid. The Tribunal ordered payment of the 4-week shortfall amounting to £2,305.32 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996 (conduct) and acted reasonably within s.98(4). Claim not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Respondent had a right to summarily dismiss for gross misconduct but elected to terminate on notice. Having paid 6 weeks' notice rather than the contractual 10 weeks, there was a shortfall of 4 weeks ordered to be paid (£2,305.32 gross, comprising 4 weeks at £576.33 per week). | Upheld | — | £2,305 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,305
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Burchell test
- s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Post Office v Foley 2000 IRLR 827
- band of reasonable responses
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.