Mrs H L Price v E S P Technologies (UK) Limited — 2019

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the claimant and Mr Whitney over Mr Sisson on the central factual disputes about the management buyout process. It found that Mr Sisson had approached the claimant and Mr Ward about a management buyout, that the claimant needed Mr Sisson's authority and Ms Hilton's input to access or export management information, and that the claimant sent September management information to Hallidays on 26 October 2017 after an indicative offer and valuation had been provided. It also accepted that the claimant genuinely believed the shareholders were drawing more than net profit, although the tribunal found the drawings were probably legitimate and from reserves.

On the misconduct case, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the claimant was dismissed for disclosing confidential material in breach of instructions. It found the investigation and disciplinary process to be seriously flawed: the claimant was suspended without being told why, invited to an investigatory meeting without explanation, and then faced 13 allegations at the disciplinary stage, only two of which were upheld and one of those falling away on appeal. The tribunal found there was no real evidence gathering, no witness statements for the investigation, and no proper analysis of the dates of the emails or whether the claimant had complied with the 3 October 2017 restriction.

On the whistleblowing issue, the tribunal held that the complaint about Sian Buckingham was not a protected disclosure and that the solicitor's letter about that matter was not a public interest disclosure. It accepted that the claimant had made a protected disclosure about the level of dividends, but held that the dismissal decision had been taken before that disclosure and therefore the dismissal was not because of it. The automatic unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.

The tribunal concluded that there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal, that the respondent's procedure was inherently unfair under the ACAS Code and section 98(4) ERA 1996, and that the claimant had not contributed to her dismissal by misconduct. It held that she was unfairly dismissed and also dismissed in breach of contract without notice. The extracted reasons do not record any separate monetary remedy or award calculation.