Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent failed to follow a procedurally fair process. The respondent did not hold a disciplinary hearing and failed to inform the claimant of his right of appeal. Although the reason for dismissal (gross misconduct - speeding at up to 105mph) was potentially fair and the investigation reasonable, the procedural failures meant the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.
The tribunal found the claimant's repeated driving at speeds of up to 105mph in excess of lawful speed limits constituted gross misconduct and a fundamental breach of contract. This breach released the respondent from the obligation to give notice or pay in lieu of notice. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore failed.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a driver and provided with a company van. Vehicle tracker data showed he repeatedly drove at speeds significantly in excess of legal limits, including 105mph, during May 2024. When confronted on 30 May 2024, he responded 'I like speed'. He was suspended and invited to a disciplinary hearing but never attended. The respondent dismissed him on 21 June 2024 for gross misconduct without holding a disciplinary hearing or providing a right of appeal. The claimant had over four years' continuous service.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to procedural failures: no disciplinary hearing was held and no right of appeal provided. However, the tribunal found 100% contributory fault and a 100% Polkey reduction because the claimant's conduct (driving at up to 105mph with no remorse) was gross misconduct and he would inevitably have been fairly dismissed had a proper procedure been followed. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the gross misconduct was a repudiatory breach releasing the respondent from notice obligations. Total compensation: nil.
Practical note
Even where dismissal is procedurally unfair, a 100% reduction for contributory fault combined with 100% Polkey reduction can result in zero compensation where the misconduct was egregious and dismissal inevitable.
Adjustments
There is a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event had a proper procedure been followed. If the disciplinary hearing had been rearranged, the respondent would have reached the same decision to dismiss by no later than 28 June 2024.
The claimant drove at speeds far in excess of lawful speed limits (up to 105mph) on multiple occasions. When challenged, he showed no remorse or contrition, responding 'I like speed'. The tribunal found this conduct wholly culpable and blameworthy, posing serious risk to the claimant, others, and the respondent. Both basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 100%.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6007401/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Hunslet Ltd
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister