Mr B Palmer v Cavendish Philatelic Auctions Limited — 2024

The claimant, Mr B Palmer, worked for Cavendish Philatelic Auctions Limited as a Describer and managed the London office. The tribunal found that his working relationship with Dr and Mrs Spring deteriorated after disputes about the Royal Philatelic Society issue, the planned sale of his shares, and the future of the London office. It accepted that by late September and October 2022 the parties were expecting the claimant to leave the business, and that the respondent's internal records and correspondence showed the Springs viewed him as the person likely to be removed from the company.

The tribunal found that the respondent's disciplinary process was not a genuine investigation into misconduct. It held that Dr Spring had already decided to dismiss the claimant by no later than 22 March 2023, that the process blended the claimant's role as employee with his separate position as director and shareholder, and that board minutes were amended to record a task that had not actually been given to him. It also found that statements from Mrs Spring and Anna Spring were exaggerated and were used to bolster the case against the claimant, and that Dr Spring was dishonest in the dismissal letter when he denied there had been prior disagreement between him and the claimant.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that conduct was not the real reason for dismissal and that the true reason was to further the Springs' aim of removing the claimant from the business and resolving the shareholding deadlock. The tribunal therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It also said that, even if conduct had been the reason, the investigation and procedure were not reasonable under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the respondent had pre-judged the matter, relied on confused allegations, and did not properly test the claimant's explanation about his work.

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that Allegation 1 did not amount to gross misconduct, that Allegation 2 was not made out because the claimant was found to have been working, and that Allegation 3, namely his refusal to engage with what he believed was a sham process, did not amount to gross misconduct in the circumstances. It held that the respondent was therefore required to give notice, and recorded that the notice period was 3 months. Remedy, including any notice pay, basic award, compensatory award, Polkey reduction, and contributory conduct reduction, was left for a later hearing.