Delivery driver dismissed for speeding: a fair decision despite live warning
An online delivery driver with a live final written warning was fairly dismissed after speeding 30% over the limit. The tribunal upheld Sainsbury's decision, finding it fell within the band of reasonable responses.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #speeding
- #final-written-warning
- #band-of-reasonable-responses
- #conduct-dismissal
- #live-warning
Key facts
- The claimant was an online delivery driver employed by Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd.
- On 4 December 2021, the claimant drove his delivery van in excess of 30% over the legal speed limit.
- The claimant admitted to the speeding at both the investigation and disciplinary hearings.
- The claimant had a live final written warning for a previous failure to report vehicle damage.
- The dismissing manager considered alternatives to dismissal but decided to dismiss.
- The claimant did not appeal the dismissal decision.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Sainsbury's as an online delivery driver.
-
First written warning
The claimant received a written warning for failure to report vehicle damage, valid for 12 months.
-
Final written warning
The claimant received a final written warning for a second incident of failure to report vehicle damage, upheld on appeal.
-
Driver training completed
The claimant successfully completed training demonstrating he could drive safely and abide by speed limits.
-
Speeding incident
The claimant drove his delivery van in excess of 30% over the legal speed limit, as recorded by the Masternaut tracking system.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant attended an investigation meeting with his union representative and admitted to speeding.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing with his union representative. He was dismissed with notice for misconduct.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for misconduct (speeding) was fair, applying the three-part test: did the employer genuinely believe the employee committed the misconduct, were there reasonable grounds for that belief, and was a reasonable investigation carried out? Additionally, whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that Sainsbury's fairly dismissed the claimant.
Key reasons:
- The employer genuinely believed the claimant had driven 30% over the speed limit, which he admitted.
- The investigation was reasonable, including a meeting with the claimant and his union representative.
- The dismissing manager considered alternatives but decided dismissal was appropriate given the live final written warning and the seriousness of the misconduct.
- The claimant did not appeal, which weakened his case.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A live final written warning for a separate misconduct can make dismissal for a further offence more likely to be fair.
- Admitting the misconduct at the investigation and disciplinary stages does not automatically make dismissal unfair — the employer still needs to follow a fair process.
- Not appealing a dismissal decision can harm a later unfair dismissal claim, as tribunals may view it as a failure to give the employer a chance to correct any errors.
- Employers are entitled to treat serious speeding by a delivery driver as gross misconduct, especially when combined with a recent warning for non-reporting of damage.
A speeding incident that ended a driving job
This case shows how a single act of misconduct, when combined with a recent live warning, can justify dismissal — even for an employee with 2.5 years of service. The claimant, an online delivery driver for Sainsbury's, was caught by the company's tracking system driving his van more than 30% over the speed limit. He admitted the speeding at both the investigation and disciplinary hearings.
What the employer did right
Sainsbury's had already given the claimant a final written warning for failing to report vehicle damage just two months earlier. That warning was still live when the speeding occurred. The dismissing manager considered alternatives, such as a further warning, but decided dismissal was appropriate. The tribunal noted that the employer's process was thorough: the claimant was accompanied by his union representative at every stage, and the decision was made by a manager not involved in the investigation.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal applied the well-known test for conduct dismissals: did the employer genuinely believe the misconduct had occurred, were there reasonable grounds for that belief, and was a reasonable investigation carried out? All three questions were answered 'yes'. The tribunal also found that dismissal fell within the 'band of reasonable responses' — meaning a reasonable employer could have made the same decision. The fact that the claimant did not appeal the decision also counted against him, as it suggested he did not give the employer a chance to reconsider.
What this means for similar cases
This case is a reminder that employees with live warnings are in a vulnerable position. Even if the new misconduct is not the most serious, the employer may legitimately decide that a final chance has already been given. For employees, it highlights the importance of appealing a dismissal if they believe it is unfair — failing to do so can weaken a later tribunal claim. For employers, it confirms that a fair process, including considering alternatives and giving the employee a voice, will often protect a dismissal decision from being overturned.
Similar cases
Border Force officer dismissed for misconduct while under a live final written warning: dismissal fair
A Border Force officer with three years' service was fairly dismissed after shouting at managers while under a live final written warning. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
Dismissed for refusing to attend meetings: conduct dismissal upheld
A clerical officer with five years' service was fairly dismissed after repeatedly refusing to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
Dismissed after final written warning: conduct decision upheld by tribunal
A client care associate with six years' service was dismissed for aggressive behaviour and unauthorised absences while on a final written warning. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the employer acted reasonably.
Shouting at a colleague after a final warning: dismissal for conduct upheld
A production worker with a final written warning for threatening behaviour was fairly dismissed after shouting at a colleague. The tribunal also ordered Bighams Ltd to pay £648.96 for unpaid holiday.