Marks and Spencer plc

Case Summary

Mr Shiels brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful wage deduction, and wrongful dismissal against Marks and Spencer plc. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair as the respondent followed a proper disciplinary procedure and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses. However, the tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed as he was entitled to notice pay, which has been adjourned to a remedy hearing.

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair because the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, the investigation was reasonable, and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. However, the tribunal found the respondent wrongfully dismissed the claimant because the respondent admitted the claimant was entitled to notice payment.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct
• •Whether the claimant suffered an unlawful deduction of wages
• •Whether the claimant was wrongfully dismissed (notice pay)
• •Whether a final written warning was validly issued
• •Whether the disciplinary procedure was fair and reasonable
• •Whether the claimant was entitled to payment in lieu of notice

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Samuel Shiels Respondent: Marks and Spencer PLC Heard at: Liverpool (by video) On: 23, 24 & 25 February & 27 April 2026 (in chambers) Before: Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr L O’Shaunessy, counsel JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. The claimant was not unfairly dismissed and his claim for unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2. The claimant’s compliant of unauthorised wages is not well- founded and is dismissed. 3. The respondent wrongfully dismissed the claimant, and claimant’s complaint of wrongful dismissal (notice pay) is well-founded and adjourned to a remedy hearing to take place by video listed for 2 hours on the 8 June 2026 before Employment Judge Shotter. The parties will be provided with the video link details in due course. 2 REASONS Preamble 1. In a claim form received on the 4 September 2024 following ACAS Early Conciliation that took place between12 July and 23 August 2024, the claimant complained that he had been unfairly dismissed and was seeking damages. The claimant also brings complaints of unpaid wages and wrongful dismissal (notice pay). 2. At the end of the liability hearing after all the witness evidence had been heard, the respondent applied to call w witness (Mrs Sims) to give evidence relating to what she was told by the payroll department about the overpayment of wages to the claimant and its deduction from the claimant’s notice pay. The respondent has not brought a counterclaim in respect of the overpayment, and there is no contemporaneous documentation from payroll. The respondent’s application was rejected for oral reasons given at the liability hearing, the thrust of which was that it was not in the interests of justice given …