Mr A Kianfar v Proterms Limited — 2025

The claimant, Mr A Kianfar, was employed by Proterms Limited as a Tech Lead from 25 September 2023 under a contract providing three months' notice. He was summarily dismissed on 14 February 2024 in connection with alleged poor performance on a new Lawspeed website, and his claim was for wrongful dismissal based on non-payment of notice. The respondent also brought a contract counterclaim said to arise from the claimant's performance and alleged simultaneous work for a third party.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's allegations that the claimant had misrepresented his qualifications or experience, was working elsewhere during working hours, or had acted without faithfulness or diligence. It found that during the development period he responded to repeated design and content instructions, that the respondent continued to entrust him with the project, and that there was no evidence of a prior finding that he lacked the relevant skills before the dismissal. The tribunal also found the allegation of dishonesty was not established.

After launch, the tribunal accepted that there were functional problems, including issues with STRIPE payments, loading speed, a black screen, the change of IP address affecting remote access, and the website crash after cPanel access. It found that some matters were explained by design choices, missing information, or competing demands on the claimant's time, and that not every problem was caused by negligence. Although it found some errors on the claimant's part, it held that they did not amount to gross negligence, substantial insubordination, or conduct showing a deliberate intention to disregard the essential requirements of the contract.

The tribunal therefore held that the respondent was not entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant and that the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. It recorded that the claimant had received only one week's pay in lieu of notice instead of the three months due under the contract, but remedy was not determined in this judgment and was to be dealt with at a later hearing. The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed.