Mr S Brochwicz-Lewinski (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant, a senior employee reporting to her husband, brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and marriage and civil partnership discrimination. Following a whistleblower complaint about financial governance in the respondent's UK operation, Mr Johnson was dismissed and the claimant was placed on paid leave on 8 May 2018. The tribunal found that she was not suspended on that date and that the later treatment was not because she was married to Mr Johnson, but because of the respondent's concerns about the wider situation in the business and the claimant's own conduct.

At the 23 May meeting, the tribunal accepted that Mr Gillespie was forceful and direct, but rejected the allegation that he behaved intimidatorily. It found that he had already formed a view by the end of that meeting that the claimant's employment would terminate, and that the subsequent disciplinary process under Mr Richards was effectively predetermined. The tribunal also held that relevant statements obtained after the disciplinary hearing were relied on without giving the claimant a proper chance to answer them, which made the dismissal unfair procedurally.

On substance, however, the tribunal found that the respondent had genuine and serious concerns about the claimant's attendance and about the expenses matter, including the cancelled lunch and the resulting bill of £500.63. It found that those matters were blameworthy and culpable, that they destroyed trust and confidence, and that they amounted to conduct justifying summary dismissal and defeating the wrongful dismissal claim. For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that although the process was unfair, the claimant would have been dismissed on the same date in any event, and it applied a 100% reduction for contributory fault so that no compensation was payable.

The discrimination claim failed because the tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the actions taken were driven by misconduct concerns, not by the claimant's marriage. It applied section 8 and section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, together with the Hawkins and Skyrail authorities, and concluded that any close personal relationship with Mr Johnson would have been treated the same way. It also recorded that, if compensation had been payable, it would have uplifted it by 25% for ACAS Code non-compliance, but that point had no practical effect because the award was extinguished.