Mr Wildman - representative For the v Mr Lomas - consultant — 2020

The Claimant had worked for about thirteen years as finance manager. She was dismissed without notice on 18 June 2019 after disciplinary proceedings arising from late payment of a loan instalment to Sevenoaks District Council. The tribunal recorded that the Respondent relied on conduct as the reason for dismissal and that the case turned on whether it held a genuine belief in the Claimant's misconduct, whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal accepted that the September 2018 and December 2018 loan payments had been made late. It preferred the evidence that the Claimant had not given Mr Viner instructions to make the December payment and rejected her later account that she had done so. It found her attitude to the seriousness of the late payments to be dismissive, and concluded that she had no proper basis for treating the loan repayments as lower priority than other outgoings. It also found that responsibility for ensuring payment rested with her as finance manager, even if she had cash-flow pressures to manage.

On procedure, the tribunal noted that no pleaded complaint of procedural unfairness had been advanced, and it found that the Respondent had followed a thorough and lengthy process. It rejected the suggestion that the appeal was flawed because Mr Peal referred to a 'reasonable employee' rather than a 'reasonable employer', and held that the use of an external consultant to chair part of the appeal process was not a breach of the ACAS Code. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell test, and the range of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the Respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It also dismissed the breach of contract claim, holding that because the dismissal was fair and the misconduct found was sufficient to justify summary dismissal, the notice pay claim could not succeed.