Case 6023269/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6023269/2024
- Decision date
- 3 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after he had been charged by the police with rape and sexual assault and was awaiting trial. The respondent relied on the serious nature of the charges, the potential impact on its reputation, and the trust and confidence required for the claimant's role as a First Officer.
The tribunal found that the respondent had established a substantial reason capable of justifying dismissal. Although the tribunal identified concerns about the respondent's early handling of the matter, it found that later procedural steps by Mr Jones and Mr Booth, including the appeal process, cured those earlier issues.
The tribunal also found that alternatives to dismissal, including redeployment and a career break, had been considered fairly. It concluded that the respondent acted reasonably within s98(4) ERA 1996, so the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim does not succeed and is dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated, but the judgment and conclusion are explicit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- ACAS code of practice on grievances and discipline
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services [1988] ICR 142
- Leach v Office for Communications [2012] ICR 1269
- L v K [2021] SLT 897
- Lafferty v Nuffield Health UKEATS/0006/19/SS
- range 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.