Mr Robert Gee v John P Gee & Sons Limited — 2022

The tribunal accepted the parties' consent figures for holiday pay and expenses, awarding £1,657.08 and £255.71 respectively. It rejected the suggestion that Robert Gee had been employed from 1990, treating the 1990 documents as not reflecting the true employment position, and found that his employment began on 24 October 2016 when he became Managing Director after his brother had been removed from the farm.

The tribunal found that the employment ended on 28 September 2020 when Robert Gee was removed as a director and therefore as Managing Director. It relied on the earlier High Court decisions in Gee v Gee [2018] EWHC 1393 (Ch) and Gee v Gee and others [2020] EWHC 1842 (Ch) as context, and accepted that the real background was a breakdown in the family relationship between Robert Gee, John Michael Gee and Pamela Humphries. It rejected the suggestion that poor management of the farm had been established as the true reason for dismissal.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent knew the removal as director would end the claimant's work on the farm and that he should have been given notice. It said that, if notice had been given, the claimant would have had one month plus one week of employment before the relationship ended, and it awarded £3,077 gross for wrongful dismissal, subject to tax and national insurance. It also rejected ACAS uplift or reduction and contributory fault arguments, finding the respondent had not proved misconduct sufficient to reduce the award.

The final order dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The reasons section includes observations about the absence of a disciplinary process and the need for notice, but the remedies awarded were limited to the agreed holiday pay and expenses, plus the wrongful dismissal notice payment.