St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

The claimant was dismissed for misconduct relating to unauthorised access to a colleague's computer and password. His claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed but his claim for wrongful dismissal succeeded, as the respondent should have dismissed him summarily for gross misconduct rather than with notice.

The claimant's unfair dismissal claim failed on its merits because the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair; however, the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded because the misconduct constituted gross misconduct warranting summary dismissal, meaning the respondent should not have provided notice and must compensate for the notice period.

• •The key legal issues/arguments were around the fairness of the dismissal - whether the respondent had a potentially fair reason and acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant.

Case No. 6019039/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Abdullahi Aden Respondent: St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal (Croydon) On: Before: 17 and 18 November 2025 Employment Judge M Da Costa (sitting alone) Attendance and representation: Claimant: In person, represented by Mr Downey of counsel Respondent: In person, represented by Ms Urquhart of counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Complaint of unfair dismissal pursuant to section 111(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 contrary to section 94 of that Act 1. The claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. 2. The respondent had a potentially fair reason to dismiss the claimant within section 98(2)(b) of the Act. 3. The respondent acted fairly in dismissing the claimant for that reason because the respondent acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissing the claimant within the meaning of section 98(4) of that Act. Complaint of wrongful dismissal contrary to the common law 4. The claimant’s complaint of wrongful dismissal is well founded and succeeds. 5. The respondent had the right to dismiss the claimant summarily without notice for gross misconduct but did not exercise that right. Instead, the respondent elected to continue its contract of employment with him by terminating that contract with notice. However, the Case No. 6019039/2024 2 respondent then failed to pay the claimant the amount of notice to which it purported him to be entitled to under that contract. 6. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £2,305.32 gross of tax and national insurance. This comprises 4 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice at £576.33 per week. 7. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance. REASONS Background 8. The claimant …