Mr K Y Choo v Citigroup Global Markets Limited — 2020

Mr K Y Choo was employed by Citigroup Global Markets Limited as a junior trader/Associate and was summarily dismissed on 19 March 2019 for gross misconduct after the Respondent concluded that his pricing and trading in SLOREP 35s on 10 November 2017, 5 December 2017 and 6 December 2017 amounted to spoofing. The tribunal recorded that the FCA had reviewed the trading and, in its letter of 9 October 2018, said it was taking no further action, but raised concerns about the Claimant’s behaviour and expected the matter to be discussed internally. The Respondent then carried out its own investigation, including investigatory and disciplinary meetings and an appeal process.

The tribunal found that Mr Hewson genuinely believed the Claimant was guilty of spoofing on each of the three dates and that this was a reasonable belief. It relied on the trading patterns recorded in the judgment, including the sequence of price movements and subsequent opposite-direction trades on 10 November 2017, 5 December 2017 and 6 December 2017, the fact that the Claimant’s pricing on those dates was not mirrored across the wider Slovenian curve, and the absence of a clear and convincing innocent explanation. The tribunal rejected the argument that the FCA letter meant the Respondent misunderstood its position or was obliged to dismiss the Claimant.

The tribunal also held that the investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable overall. It found that the Claimant was given repeated opportunities to explain his trading, including the investigatory meeting, two disciplinary hearings, and several appeal meetings, and that he was provided with relevant Slovenian bond data and later TWS data during the process. The tribunal rejected criticisms about the alternative allegation that the conduct could be perceived as spoofing, the replacement appeal officer, and the length of the appeal process. It concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. In the alternative Polkey assessment, the tribunal said there would have been a 75% chance of dismissal even if the Claimant had received the TWS data earlier. It also found, on contributory fault, that the Claimant’s conduct did amount to spoofing and would have justified a 100% reduction had compensation arisen.