Mr Stephen Little v Chandlers Garage Worthing Ltd: 1400888/2017
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 April 2018 |
| Citation | 1400888/2017 |
| Date | 01 April 2018 |
| Published date | 24 November 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 1400888/2017
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Stephen Little
Respondent:
Chandlers Garage Worthing Limited
Heard at: Southampton
Employment Tribunal
On: Wednesday, 7
th
March 2018
Before:
Employment Judge
Mr. M. Salter
Rep
resentation:
Claimant:
In person
Respondent:
Mr. L.Godfrey, counsel.
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed.
REASONS
References in square brackets below are unless the context suggests otherwise to the
page of the bundle. Those followed by a with a § refer to a paragraph on that page and
references that follow a case reference, or a witness’ initials, refer to the paragraph
number of that authority or witness statement.
References in round brackets are to the paragraph of these reasons or to provide
definitions.
INTRODUCTION
1. These are the reasons for my reserved judgment above.
Case Number: 1400888/2017
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62
2
BACKGROUND
The Claimant’s case as formulated in his ET1
2. The Claimant’s complaint, as formulated in his Fo rm ET1, presented to the tribunal
on 7th June 2017 [2] is, in short, he was unfairly dismissed from his employment
with the Respondent.
The Respondent’s Response
3. In its Form ET3, dated 10th July 201 7 , the Respondent accepted that the Claimant
was an employee and that he was dismissed but stated his dismissal was not
unfair and was for a reason related to his conduct.
THE FINAL HEARING
Representation
4. The matter came before me today final hearing. The hearing had a one-day time
estimate. The Claimant represented himself whilst the Respondent was
represented by Mr. L. Godfrey of counsel.
List of Issues
5. The Respondent produced a list of issues which Mr. Little confi rmed was an
agreed list of issues. I set the list of issues out below:
The Claim
1. C claims unfair dismissal.
The issues – limitation
2. R no longer puts in issue the time in which C brought his claim.
The issues – unfair dismissal
3. The reason for dismissal:
a. R av ers that C was dismissed for the potentially fair reason of
conduct. The relevant conduct was considered gross misconduct
by R being the driving of a customer vehicle (namely a marked
Sussex Police BMW X5) at excess speeds and bringing the
company into disrepute.
b. C contends that R dismissed him because it was not fi nancially
viable to retain him and/or as a scapegoat for failures in
maintaining their relationship with Sussex Police.
4. Genuine belief:
a. R’s position is that the fact of driving at excess speed was
admitted by C and C’s explanation of his ac tions lacked
understanding such that he was not genuinely remorseful. In
that premise, R could not have faith that C would not repeat the
same misconduct in the future.
To continue reading
Request your trial