Claimant v Food Hub Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the disciplinary process was orchestrated to achieve a predetermined outcome of dismissal, not undertaken in good faith. The process was described as 'window-dressing' with vital evidence not presented fairly, and a probationary employee inappropriately appointed as decision-maker under pressure to dismiss. This rendered the dismissal unfair.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed on 7 September 2022. Shortly after, he suffered a heart problem requiring surgery and was unfit for work until late January 2023. He then actively sought employment but struggled due to having to disclose his dismissal and ongoing litigation at interviews. His prolonged unemployment led to financial difficulties and deteriorating mental health, with GP diagnoses of low mood, depression and anxiety from March 2024 onwards. He remained unemployed and signed off sick at the time of the remedy hearing.
Decision
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,569.50 and a compensatory award of £58,850 (the statutory cap). The tribunal found the claimant had reasonably mitigated his loss and applied a 25% ACAS uplift because the disciplinary process was orchestrated window-dressing to achieve a predetermined dismissal outcome, not undertaken in good faith. The uplift took the award beyond the cap.
Practical note
A disciplinary process that appears procedurally compliant but is orchestrated in bad faith to achieve a predetermined dismissal outcome amounts to a breach of the ACAS Code justifying a 25% uplift, and may be no better for the employee than having no process at all.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
The tribunal found the disciplinary process was orchestrated to achieve a predetermined outcome and was not undertaken in good faith, amounting to window-dressing. A predetermined process is no better for the employee than having no process at all, justifying a 25% uplift.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1309075/2022
- Decision date
- 18 July 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Food Hub Limited
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No