Dismissed in a lay-by for falsifying fire alarm tests: procedural unfairness but no compensation
A senior engineer with 12 years' service was summarily dismissed in a lay-by after falsifying fire alarm test records. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but awarded nothing because the engineer was 100% to blame.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #fire-alarm-testing
- #falsified-log-book
- #summary-dismissal
- #procedural-unfairness
- #100-percent-contribution
- #final-written-warning
Key facts
- The claimant was a senior engineer employed since October 2008.
- He failed to properly test fire alarm call points at UCL Stanmore Hospital over several weeks.
- He falsified the manual log book by recording tests he did not perform.
- The respondent summarily dismissed him in a lay-by without prior notice of the allegations or opportunity to be accompanied.
- The dismissal was procedurally unfair but the claimant's conduct was 100% blameworthy, resulting in no compensation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for respondent as an engineer.
-
British Standards training
Claimant trained on relevant British Standards for fire alarm testing.
-
Final written warning
Claimant received a final written warning for failing to fully test a fire alarm system and for attitude issues.
-
Start of period of incorrect testing
From this date, the claimant only tested zone 2 call point but recorded testing other zones in the manual log.
-
UCL reported bell failure
UCL reported that bells on the fire alarm system had failed; claimant and another engineer attended but found no fault.
-
Moughton discovered testing discrepancies
James Moughton attended UCL, fixed the fault, and discovered that the claimant had not been testing all zones as recorded.
-
Summary dismissal meeting
Mark Fisk met the claimant in a lay-by, showed him evidence of the testing failures, and summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Respondent sent a letter confirming summary dismissal for gross misconduct, referencing the testing failures and previous final warning.
-
Tribunal hearing (day 1)
Employment tribunal heard evidence and submissions.
-
Judgment given
Tribunal found unfair dismissal on procedural grounds but awarded no compensation due to 100% contributory conduct.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the engineer for gross misconduct, and if the dismissal was unfair, what compensation should be awarded given the engineer's own conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer failed to follow basic disciplinary procedures: the engineer was not given prior notice of the allegations, was not allowed to be accompanied at the meeting, and had no right of appeal. However, the engineer's conduct — failing to properly test fire alarm call points and falsifying the log book over several weeks — was serious and entirely blameworthy.
Because the engineer was 100% responsible for his dismissal, the tribunal applied a 100% reduction for contributory fault and a 100% Polkey reduction (meaning he would have been fairly dismissed even with a fair procedure). As a result, no compensation was awarded:
- Basic award: £0
- Compensatory award: £0
- Total award: £0
Lessons & takeaways
- Even in clear cases of misconduct, employers must follow a fair procedure — including giving notice of allegations, allowing a companion, and offering a right of appeal.
- A summary dismissal in an informal setting like a lay-by is almost certain to be procedurally unfair, regardless of the strength of the evidence.
- Employees who commit serious misconduct may still win on unfair dismissal grounds but receive no compensation if the tribunal finds they were entirely to blame.
- A final written warning for similar conduct can make it harder for an employee to argue that dismissal was too harsh.
A dismissal that was fair in substance but unfair in process
This case highlights a common tension in employment law: an employer may have rock-solid grounds for dismissal but still lose a tribunal claim if the procedure is botched. The senior engineer had falsified fire alarm test records over several weeks, a serious breach of trust in a safety-critical role. But when Mark Fisk of Fisk Fire Group Ltd pulled the engineer over in a lay-by and summarily dismissed him on the spot, he denied the engineer any semblance of due process.
The tribunal was clear that the engineer's conduct was gross misconduct. He had been trained on the relevant British Standards, had a final written warning for similar failings, and had knowingly recorded tests he did not perform. The employer genuinely believed he was guilty, and that belief was reasonable. But the procedure fell far short of the ACAS Code of Practice: no written notification of the allegations, no opportunity to be accompanied, and no appeal. The dismissal was therefore procedurally unfair.
Why the engineer got nothing
Ordinarily, a procedurally unfair dismissal leads to compensation. But here the tribunal applied two reductions that wiped out the award entirely. First, it found that the engineer's conduct was 100% blameworthy, meaning he caused or contributed to his dismissal. Second, it applied a 100% Polkey reduction, concluding that even if a fair procedure had been followed, the engineer would still have been dismissed. The result: a declaration of unfair dismissal but zero compensation.
What this means for similar cases
For employers, the lesson is that even when misconduct is clear-cut, cutting procedural corners can be costly — not in compensation here, but in time, legal fees, and reputational damage. For employees, the case is a reminder that winning on unfair dismissal does not guarantee a payout. If you have committed serious misconduct, a tribunal may find the dismissal unfair on technical grounds but still award nothing. The safest course is to follow proper procedures from the start, no matter how strong the evidence.
Similar cases
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Dismissed for stealing diesel: procedural flaws made it unfair
A Highways Maintenance Operative was unfairly dismissed after admitting to stealing diesel, but the tribunal found the investigation and disciplinary process were procedurally flawed.
Apprentice carpenter dismissed for taking unauthorised holiday: no investigation or hearing
An apprentice carpenter was unfairly dismissed after taking a week's holiday despite his employer's refusal. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded £918.13, including unlawful deduction claims.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.