Morrison Data Services Ltd

Case Summary

The Employment Judge dismissed Mr G Paul's claim of unfair dismissal against Morrison Data Services Ltd. The judge found that the reason for dismissal was not well-founded and fell within the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was not well-founded and fell within the band of reasonable responses available to the employer, resulting in dismissal that was fair.

• •Was there a dismissal?
• •Can the Respondent establish a potentially fair reason for the Claimant’s dismissal?
• •Is conduct potentially fair at law?
• •Was it reasonable for the Respondent to treat that as a sufficient reason to dismiss?
• •Was the dismissal within the band of reasonable responses, having regard to the circumstances of the employer?
• •Did the Respondent adopt a fair procedure?

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G Paul Respondent: Morrison Data Services Limited Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal On: 3-5 September 2025 Before: Employment Judge L Wilson Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Scott Davis, Counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. WRITTEN REASONS 1. By this claim, the Claimant brings a claim of unfair dismissal. 2. A list of issues was presented by each party at the outset of the hearing, the combination of which identified the following issues. i. Was there a dismissal? This was not in dispute. ii. Can the Respondent establish a potentially fair reason for the Claimant’s dismissal? The Respondent contends that the Claimant was dismissed on the grounds of ‘gross misconduct’; ie a ‘conduct’ dismissal. The Claimant asserts that the real reason was personal dislike and exaggerated performance issues. 2 iii. Is conduct potentially fair at law? It is not in dispute that ‘conduct’ is a potentially fair reason at law under s98(2) ERA 1996. iv. Was it reasonable for the Respondent to treat that as a sufficient reason to dismiss? v. Was the dismissal within the band of reasonable responses, having regard to the circumstances of the employer? vi. Did the Respondent adopt a fair procedure? 3. There were no other claims before the Tribunal. Evidence 4. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant himself, and Mr Andrew Vickers on his behalf. The Tribunal received written evidence from Mr Mark White, on behalf of the Claimant. The Claimant notified the Tribunal on the first day of the Final Hearing that Mr White was unavailable because he is in hospital with a serious health condition. No medical evidence was provided but the Tribunal accepted this explanation. Mr …