Ms E Greenaway-Evans v Countryside Properties (UK) Limited — 2023

The claimant, Ms E Greenaway-Evans, had been employed by Countryside Properties (UK) Limited since 29 March 1999 and was dismissed for gross misconduct on 29 June 2020. The allegations arose from an exit interview involving Bethany Keeley on 12 March 2020, and the tribunal noted that the respondent’s case was assembled from several inconsistent sources, including an exit interview form, handwritten notes and an email from HR, rather than from one comprehensive record. The allegations were not dated, and the tribunal found that no effective attempt was made to clarify which complaints actually came from Ms Keeley and which had been filtered through HR.

The tribunal found that the respondent treated the seriousness of the allegations as evidence that they were true, rather than testing them properly. No-one spoke to Ms Keeley again after the exit interview, the later investigation was found to be inadequate, and the witnesses interviewed in the disciplinary process did not provide substantive corroboration. The tribunal held that the interview questions were often leading, that some responses were treated as corroboration when they were not, and that the claimant’s explanations were wrongly treated as admissions. It also found that the appeal process did not repair the defects in the original investigation, because the appeal manager largely sought context from people who were not witnesses to the allegations.

Applying sections 98(1), 98(2) and 98(4) of the ERA 1996, together with the Polkey approach, British Home Stores Ltd v Birchell, British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds for a genuine belief that the claimant had committed gross misconduct and that the investigation was not reasonable. The dismissal therefore fell outside the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim was upheld.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had not proved gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities and was therefore not entitled to dismiss without notice. The claimant had not repudiated her contract, the dismissal was in breach of contract, and the wrongful dismissal claim was also upheld.