The tribunal's decision didn't condone the insult. Instead, it focused on Main Group’s complete failure to act reasonably. The key factors were:
<ol>
 	<li><strong>Context: </strong>Judge Sonia Boyes noted that the comment was a "one-off" made during a "heated meeting" where Ms Herbert was clearly distressed. It wasn't a calculated act of insubordination or part of a pattern of abusive behaviour. In the eyes of the tribunal, the situation demanded a more measured response than instant dismissal.</li>
 	<li><strong>Failure to Follow Company Policy:</strong> Ms Herbert’s own contract was a crucial piece of evidence. It specified that "insulting or abusive language" was misconduct that required a prior warning. Summary dismissal was reserved for gross misconduct, such as "threatening and intimidating language." The tribunal found Ms Herbert's outburst didn't meet that higher standard.</li>
 	<li><strong>Lack of Process:</strong> Firing an employee on the spot is almost always procedurally unfair. Mr Swannell’s heat-of-the-moment decision bypassed every element of a fair disciplinary process. A fair procedure would have involved:</li>
</ol>
<ul>
 	<li style="list-style-type: none;">
<ul>
 	<li>Conducting a fair and impartial investigation into the incident;</li>
 	<li>Inviting the employee to a formal disciplinary hearing to state her case; and</li>
 	<li>Reaching a considered decision on the appropriate sanction.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
By skipping these steps, Main Group left itself open to risk of a successful unfair dismissal claim.