Mr D Woolley v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2026

The Tribunal upheld Mr Woolley’s sole claim of unfair dismissal. It found that the Secretary of State honestly believed that Mr Woolley had committed gross misconduct, had conducted a reasonable investigation, and had reasonable grounds for concluding that the D wing allegation was proved. It also found that dismissal would have been within the range of reasonable responses if the belief in misconduct had been reached through a fair process.

The dismissal was unfair because the disciplinary charges were insufficiently clear and because Mr Woolley’s companion, Mr Dutton, was not permitted to address the disciplinary hearing. The first charge did not specify the acts relied upon, while the third charge contained unresolved confusion about whether it concerned A wing or D wing. Preventing Mr Dutton from addressing the hearing breached section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, the Acas Code of Practice and the respondent’s PSI 6/2010 policy, and was particularly relevant because Mr Woolley was emotional and struggling to read questions. The appeal, which was a review rather than a rehearing, did not cure those defects.

Applying Polkey, the Tribunal assessed an 80% chance that Mr Woolley would have been fairly dismissed in any event because there was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable employer could uphold the D wing allegation and dismissal was likely if it were upheld. The Tribunal did not find the D wing incident proved for the separate purpose of contributory fault, but found that Mr Woolley’s 8 March 2024 text to LD was inappropriate conduct by a manager towards a junior employee. It ordered a 15% reduction to both the basic and compensatory awards for contributory fault. No monetary award was determined because remedy and consequential issues were reserved for a further hearing.