Mr T S Ahmed v Panache Leasing Ltd — 2023

Mr T S Ahmed brought an unfair dismissal claim against Panache Leasing Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the High Court had already decided the wrongful dismissal complaint, so the Employment Tribunal confined itself to unfair dismissal and remedy. It accepted that the effective date of termination was 4 March 2021, when the claimant learned through ACAS that his employment had ended.

The respondent said the dismissal was for misconduct, relying on alleged online pornographic and gambling payments and alleged misappropriation of company funds. The tribunal found that the relevant transactions appeared in the company records from 2019, that the accounts were regularly prepared and signed off by Syed Ahmed, that the transactions were not concealed, and that there had been no proper investigation or disciplinary meeting about them. It held that the respondent did not have a reasonable belief that the claimant had committed misconduct in relation to those payments or that he had misappropriated company funds.

The respondent also relied on alleged threats said to have been made at a meeting on 3 November 2020, including claims that the claimant threatened to bomb the business or Syed Ahmed's home. The tribunal compared the transcript of the meeting, the contemporaneous emails, and the later evidence, and found that the claimant was angry and frustrated during shareholder negotiations but that the evidence did not support findings that he had made real threats of that kind. It found that the dismissal arose from the breakdown in negotiations about Syed Ahmed's exit from the business, not from a fair misconduct process.

On remedy, the tribunal refused reinstatement and re-engagement because the working relationship had broken down. It awarded a basic award of £4,035 and a compensatory award of £42,570, made up of £10,920 for outstanding wages to 4 March 2021, £450 for loss of statutory rights, and £31,200 for one year's future loss. It then applied a 25% ACAS uplift of £10,642.50, made no Polkey reduction and no reduction for contributory fault, and ordered payment of £53,212.50, with grossing-up to be addressed separately.