Case 6025921/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hisherick v Advanced Innergy Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6025921/2025
- Decision date
- 20 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
- Venue
- London East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hisherick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after he placed an order with the Canadian joint venture partner despite an instruction that non-Canadian work should not be placed there where it could be fulfilled elsewhere. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence on the instruction, the associated financial implications, and the risk of legal conflict with another joint venture partner.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a reasonable belief in misconduct based on evidence, gave the claimant an opportunity to respond, and followed a fair procedure in line with its disciplinary process and the ACAS Code. Summary dismissal was found to be within the range of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
For notice pay, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the respondent to summarily dismiss him. The wrongful dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as a breach of contract claim for notice pay and dismisses it as wrongful dismissal/notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- Enable Care and Home Support Ltd v Pearson EAT 0366/09
- 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.