Case 2202261/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Amtrust Management Services Limited — 2020

Case reference: 2202261/2019
Decision date: 24 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Quill
Venue: London Central

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Amtrust Management Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, a professional indemnity claims manager and solicitor, was dismissed after sending 44 work emails from his account to his personal Gmail account on 7 February 2019. The tribunal found that the emails contained a mixture of confidential, sensitive, legally privileged, and personal information, and that the claimant had deliberately copied the material to preserve it for possible later use. The tribunal also found that he had made covert recordings of meetings, including meetings with management and HR, with the hope of using them in future proceedings.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because the 13 February 2019 dismissal decision was reached without a fair process, although the respondent had a reasonable basis for treating the sending of the 7 February 2019 emails as misconduct. The tribunal would have applied an 80% Polkey reduction, a 20% ACAS uplift, and a 25% contributory fault reduction to the compensatory and basic awards, but the parties later agreed remedy so no tribunal award was made.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The claimant's breach of contract claim failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The employer's contract claim succeeded to the extent that the tribunal found the claimant had breached contract by sending 44 emails to his personal Gmail account on 7 February 2019 and by making covert recordings, but the tribunal found no entitlement to damages because causation was not proved in relation to the Clyde & Co invoice relied on.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

13 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.