Case 2301772/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mukhtiar Singh, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301772/2017
- Decision date
- 19 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mukhtiar Singh, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Adaka was employed by HM Revenue & Customs from 20 May 2002 as a VAT Assurance Officer and was suspended in March 2015 while an internal investigation was carried out into allegations concerning tax offences, tax credit fraud and money laundering. A separate disability discrimination claim had previously been withdrawn. Following an investigation, a disciplinary hearing, and an appeal, the tribunal considered only the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal applied sections 94, 98(2)(b) and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the range of reasonable responses approach, citing Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt. It found that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe allegations 1 and 2 were proved: failure to declare rental income from jointly owned buy-to-let properties, and claiming tax credits as a single person when the claimant was found not to be single for tax credit purposes. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent could rely on the materials before it at the time, including the tax credit evidence showing an overpayment of £8,740.26.
By contrast, the tribunal was not satisfied that allegation 3 was proved on a reasonable investigation. That allegation concerned the sale proceeds for Flat 24 Crawford Point, where the claimant said the relevant figure was £130,000 and the balance of £18,000 was compensation; the tribunal held that the respondent had not properly investigated whether the £18,000 should have been treated separately. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's procedural criticisms, including the suggestion that HR had been the real decision-maker and that the decision manager was disqualified by a social connection.
Even though allegation 3 failed, the tribunal held that allegations 1 and 2 were sufficient to justify dismissal for gross misconduct under the respondent's policies and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23 CA
- A v B [2003] IRLR 405
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
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.