Mr P. Remillard v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. – London Branch — 2025

Mr P. Remillard was employed by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. - London Branch as a trader from 2016 until his summary dismissal on 1 December 2022. The dismissal followed an investigation into eight trading sequences on the New York cocoa market in 2018 which the Respondent treated as spoofing and which resulted in a Level 3 Violation Notice. The tribunal accepted that the Respondent was investigating conduct falling within its anti-fraud and code of conduct policies, and that the dismissing officer, Mr Sippel, genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was nonetheless procedurally unfair. It found that the Respondent unreasonably failed to disclose to the claimant material data he had requested, including market ladders, full risk position data, certain emails, instant messages and Bloomberg messages, client orders, and the record showing that an analyst had reviewed some of the 2018 alerts without escalation. It also found that the six-month delay between Mr Sippel saying he had enough information to decide and the issuing of the outcome letter on 1 December 2022 was excessive and unreasonable. The late provision of the disciplinary and appeal notes was criticised as bad practice, but was not treated as a separate basis of unfairness.

On the Polkey issue, the tribunal concluded that there was only a 5% chance that the missing disclosure would have enabled the claimant to show a legitimate business purpose for all of the impugned trades. It therefore found a 95% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for conduct even if the procedural unfairness had not occurred. On contribution, the tribunal found that the claimant had engaged in spoofing and, alternatively, had failed to escalate or contemporaneously record suspicious trading despite knowing the relevant obligations; that conduct was blameworthy and contributed to his dismissal. The question of any reduction to compensation, including the effect of Polkey and contribution, was left to the remedy hearing.