Mr David Flood, Counsel For the v Mr Richard Wayman - Counsel — 2022

Mr A Chambers worked for the first respondent from 17 April 2002 until his summary dismissal on 2 October 2020 as a Senior Business Manager. On the first day of the hearing he withdrew the age discrimination complaint and all claims against the second respondent. The tribunal then determined the remaining claims for ordinary unfair dismissal and breach of contract arising from the dismissal.

The tribunal found that the respondent had clearly communicated compliance requirements through its FCA handbook, housekeeping manual and related emails, including requirements to inspect original driving licences, use the UV process, and ensure that DealTrak entries matched the customer proposal form. It found that, in the LF transaction, the claimant entered incorrect nationality, employment and driving-licence expiry information, failed to inspect the original licence on 31 January 2019 and 9 February 2019, and falsely certified that he had checked the documents with a UV lamp. It also found mismatches in the VS transaction between the proposal form and DealTrak, including nationality, residence and employment details.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had been instructed by Black Horse to enter incorrect information. It accepted that the decision-makers genuinely believed he had committed gross misconduct, that they had reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the main process criticisms did not make the dismissal unfair. Although it noted that the initial investigation meetings were not ideal because the claimant had no advance notice and was not offered accompaniment, it found no material unfairness because he was later given the files, received a detailed disciplinary invite, chose not to be accompanied, and had a full appeal rehearing. Any concern that Mr Tonks had not separately considered sanction was treated as cured on appeal.

Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the authorities on misconduct dismissal, the tribunal held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct. The breach of contract claim also failed because the tribunal found that his actions struck at the heart of the relationship of trust and confidence and were a fundamental breach of the respondent's communicated compliance rules. No monetary award was made.