In person For the v Mr Livingston — 2023

The claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal on 12 October 2022 for gross misconduct. The respondent relied on alleged breaches of its Conflict of Interest Policy, Confidential Information Policy, Acceptable Use Policy and guidelines on non-disclosure agreements. The tribunal recorded that an initial allegation concerning a demand for £14,800 was investigated but there was insufficient evidence of misconduct on that point; the later disciplinary process focused instead on the claimant's arrangements involving Mr Davis and Ms Bates, including a £200 payment to Mr Davis, allowing use of his laptop, undisclosed friendship with Ms Bates, use of Ocado letterhead for a character reference, and the absence of a signed NDA.

The claimant said the investigation and dismissal were driven by an ulterior motive linked to his line manager, Mr Digby, and he disputed parts of the respondent's factual case. The tribunal found no evidence that Mr Digby was involved in the dismissal or that the claimant's dismissal arose from his actions. It found that the respondent carried out a fair and reasonable investigation and that Ms Brookbanks genuinely believed the misconduct allegations on reasonable grounds. The tribunal accepted the respondent's findings that the claimant had breached the relevant policies in the respects identified and that the cumulative effect and seriousness of those breaches amounted to gross misconduct.

Applying s.98(1), (2) and (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that conduct was the potentially fair reason for dismissal and that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. It found that Ms Brookbanks took account of the claimant's personal circumstances, including bereavements and mental health matters, but still concluded dismissal was an appropriate sanction. The claimant's application during the hearing to amend his claim to add wrongful dismissal was refused under Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore and Vaughan v Modality Partnership on the basis that the balance of injustice and hardship favoured the respondent. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.