Mr David Livesey v Connells Group and 1 other — 2026

Mr Livesey announced in June 2023 that he intended to retire during 2024 and would assist with finding his successor. The tribunal found that he did not resign or trigger the written-notice provisions in clause 3.1 of his service agreement at that time. It rejected the wider allegation that Mr Haire had conducted a campaign of bullying intended to undermine, isolate or force Mr Livesey to retire.

On 28 September 2023, Mr Livesey was told to leave the business immediately, was in effect placed on garden leave and was subsequently removed as a director without his knowledge or consent. The tribunal found that he was not then serving notice and that these actions breached clause 3 of his service agreement. It also found that the 30 November 2023 letter, which treated the June announcement retrospectively as the start of his notice period, was an attempt to rewrite the parties' history and constituted a serious contractual breach.

Taken together, the removal as director and the November letter breached the implied term of trust and confidence, while the breaches of the express notice provisions were also fundamental. Mr Livesey had not waived the breaches or affirmed the contract, and the breaches were the main cause of his resignation on 7 December 2023. He was therefore constructively dismissed.

Connells did not establish that the dismissal resulted from an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence or another potentially fair reason. The tribunal found insufficient evidence for allegations that Mr Livesey had acted inappropriately in relation to remuneration, recruitment or colleagues, and those matters had not been raised with him at the time. It additionally found that Connells had applied no proper dismissal process and had not complied with material aspects of the ACAS Code. The dismissal was unfair, and no reduction for contributory fault was justified.

The direct age discrimination allegations concerning the 28 September meeting, the appointment of an interim CEO and the contractual bonus were rejected. However, the tribunal found that the November letter and the constructive dismissal established prima facie less favourable treatment when compared with the documented treatment of Mr Plumtree and Mr Newton. Connells failed to provide an adequate non-discriminatory explanation, so those parts of the age discrimination claim succeeded.

The tribunal also found age discrimination in the treatment of Mr Livesey under Condor 3. Mr Plumtree was offered a clean-break arrangement worth approximately £1.632 million, while Mr Livesey was refused a clean break and his shares were later transferred for 46p. The tribunal found that the disparity had not been adequately explained and that the treatment was not justified as a proportionate means of achieving the stated aim of efficiently managing senior-staff departures and recruitment. The acts formed a connected series and the discrimination claim was in time. Skipton Group Holdings Limited was held liable because of its integral participation in the relevant decisions, under section 111 or alternatively section 112 of the Equality Act 2010. This judgment determined liability and contributory fault but recorded no monetary award.