Milton Keynes City Council

Case Summary

The Claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of gross misconduct. The Claimant's claim for unfair dismissal therefore fails.

The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct following a full hearing of the unfair dismissal claim, and therefore the claim fails on its merits.

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

• •What was the reason or principal for dismissal?
• •Was the reason a potentially fair reason?
• •If so, was the decision to dismiss fair or unfair in accordance with s.98(4) ERA 1996?
• •If the dismissal was unfair: what compensation should be ordered?
• •that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event (Polkey)
• •that any compensation awarded should be reduced on account of contributory conduct
• •that the Claimant has failed to mitigate her loss

Case No: 6016850/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Respondent: Mrs. A. Dickson-Lewis Milton Keynes City Council Heard at: Cambridge Tribunal On: 11 & 12 August 2025 Before: Employment Judge Douse Appearances For the claimant: Ms K. Jayden, lay representative For the respondent: Mr. C. Crow, Counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of gross misconduct. 2. The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal therefore fails. REASONS Claims and issues 1. The Claimant has brought a claim for Unfair Dismissal contrary to Sections 94, and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 2. There was a list of issues agreed in advance: Case No: 6016850/2024 2.1. What was the reason or principal for dismissal? R contends that the reason was conduct, per s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996; 2.2. Was the reason a potentially fair reason? 2.3. If so, was the decision to dismiss fair or unfair in accordance with s.98(4) ERA 1996. 2.4. If the dismissal was unfair: what compensation should be ordered. The Respondent will rely upon the contentions: i. that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event (Polkey); ii. that any compensation awarded should be reduced on account of contributory conduct; iii. that the Claimant has failed to mitigate her loss. Procedure, documents, and evidence heard Preliminary issues 3. Mr. Crow suggested from the outset that the 2-day listing may be insufficient and proposed a timetable that would allow for completion of evidence and submissions, with a reserved judgment. Unfortunately, the available time was further reduced because the Claimant and her lay representative attended the Watford Tribunal (the administrative contact address at the top of the notice of hearing), rather than the hearing venue that was specified within the notice itself, so there was a signifi…