HGV driver dismissed for tachograph offences: unfair but no compensation due to contributory fault
A tribunal found that Port Traction Limited unfairly dismissed an HGV driver for exceeding driving hours, but reduced compensation to zero because the driver would have been dismissed anyway and contributed to his own dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tachograph-offences
- #gross-misconduct
- #procedural-unfairness
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-fault
- #language-barriers
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 3 July 2020 for exceeding driving and duty time limits on 19 June 2020.
- The respondent did not give the claimant an opportunity to explain his conduct before dismissing him.
- The claimant had received previous warnings for tachograph offences.
- The respondent's disciplinary process was procedurally flawed, including lack of an interpreter and no appeal meeting.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant signed a contract of employment as an HGV driver.
-
Public Enquiry
The respondent appeared before a Public Enquiry regarding tachograph infringements, with the claimant's offences being the most serious.
-
Tachograph offences
The claimant drove for 10 hours 43 minutes (exceeding 10-hour limit) and had a duty time of 16 hours 38 minutes (exceeding 15-hour limit).
-
TruTac report received
The respondent received an independent tachograph analysis report from TruTac.
-
Refusal to unload
The claimant refused to unload goods due to safety concerns; the respondent asked him to unload but he refused.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was handed a dismissal letter by Mr Paul Myers, summarily dismissed for gross misconduct due to tachograph offences.
-
Appeal letter
The claimant wrote to the respondent appealing the dismissal, stating he had not received prior warnings and that the dismissal was unfair.
-
Appeal response
The respondent replied, enclosing copies of previous warnings and stating the dismissal would stand.
-
Cheque received
The claimant received a cheque for £827.06 from the respondent, marked 'full and final settlement'.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for tachograph offences was unfair due to procedural flaws, and whether any compensation should be reduced because the driver would have been dismissed anyway (Polkey) or because he contributed to his dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Port Traction Limited unfairly dismissed the HGV driver because the disciplinary process was flawed: he was not given a chance to explain his conduct, no interpreter was provided despite language barriers, and the appeal was not properly handled. However, the tribunal also found that the driver had committed serious tachograph offences and had previous warnings, so even with a fair procedure he would have been dismissed. Additionally, his own conduct contributed 100% to the dismissal. As a result, both the basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 100%, leaving no compensation payable.
- Basic award: reduced to £0 due to 100% contributory fault
- Compensatory award: reduced to £0 due to 100% Polkey reduction and 100% contributory fault
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must give employees a genuine opportunity to explain their side before dismissing for misconduct, especially where language barriers exist.
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, compensation can be reduced to zero if the employee would have been dismissed anyway or contributed to their own dismissal.
- Drivers should be aware that repeated tachograph offences can lead to dismissal, and procedural flaws may not result in compensation if the outcome would have been the same.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how even a procedurally flawed dismissal may not result in compensation if the employee's own conduct is serious enough. The HGV driver, who had four years' service, was dismissed after exceeding driving and duty time limits. The employer, Port Traction Limited, failed to follow a fair process: the driver was not given a chance to explain, no interpreter was provided despite his limited English, and the appeal was a mere formality. The tribunal found these flaws made the dismissal unfair.
However, the driver had previous warnings for similar offences, and the company had faced a Public Enquiry partly due to his infringements. The tribunal concluded that even with a fair procedure, the driver would have been dismissed. It also found that his conduct contributed entirely to the dismissal. As a result, compensation was reduced to zero.
What the employer could have done differently
Port Traction Limited could have avoided the finding of unfairness by following basic procedural steps: holding a proper disciplinary meeting, allowing the driver to explain, providing an interpreter, and conducting a fair appeal. However, given the seriousness of the offences and the driver's record, the outcome might still have been dismissal.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that unfair dismissal claims can succeed on procedural grounds even when the employee's conduct is serious. But it also shows that compensation is not automatic. Tribunals will consider whether a fair process would have made a difference and whether the employee contributed to their dismissal. Employees with a history of misconduct may find their compensation reduced or eliminated, even if the dismissal was unfair.
Similar cases
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Dismissed for mishearing an instruction: a conduct case that failed to consider the possibility of misunderstanding
A purge and relight engineer with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a dispute over whether he was told to return to a work site. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider the possibility of miscommunication and did not interview a key witness.
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.
Dismissed for using company fuel card on furlough: procedural unfairness but no compensation
A machine tool services engineer was unfairly dismissed after using a company fuel card during furlough, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because he would have been dismissed anyway.