Case 6022319/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hemingway v Cash Converters Yorkshire Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022319/2025
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hemingway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Store Manager with the respondent since January 2015, was dismissed on 10 April 2025 for gross misconduct after selling a personal item (an Airbrush) to the store on 26 March 2025 for £40 without obtaining authorisation from his Regional Manager, contrary to the 'Employee Usage' policy. The Airbrush was subsequently sold for £19.99, leading to a financial loss of £20.01.
The Employment Judge accepted the dismissal was for the reason given. On the question of reasonableness under s.98(4) ERA 1996, the judge found it was reasonable for the respondent to be suspicious of the claimant's account that he had misunderstood the policy changes communicated by an October 2024 email (the relevant part of which had not changed for store managers selling their own items), and that his explanations regarding the abbreviations 'SM' and 'RM' were inconsistent and damaged his credibility. The judge applied the third Hadjioannou factor on comparators, finding the only truly comparable individual (DV) had also been dismissed and that DV's subsequent re-engagement related to a relationship with the founders that the claimant did not have.
While the judge identified some procedural shortcomings (a reasonable employer would have engaged further with the claimant's inconsistency-of-treatment assertions, and the appeal officer Mr Ward had become frustrated during the hearing), neither rendered the procedure outside the range of reasonable responses, and they would very unlikely have made a difference to the outcome. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. The dismissal was for gross misconduct (selling a personal item to the store without Regional Manager approval, contrary to the Employee Usage policy). Both procedure and decision found within the range of reasonable responses. PDF truncated from 41,834 characters. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Hadjioannou (comparator/inconsistency)
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.