Mr B Cullen v Represented by:10 Mr I Burke - Solicitor Brian Cullen Ltd — 2023

Mr B Cullen, a dentist who had bought the practice in 2004, brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal by Brian Cullen Ltd. The tribunal was not deciding the rights or wrongs of the 2012 joint venture agreement or whether it was enforceable. It heard evidence about the background to the business relationship, the role of BHSL and ST, and the concerns raised from late 2020 onwards about the claimant's conduct and business practices.

The tribunal found that a number of issues were raised by staff and management, including communication difficulties, use of company funds for personal items, and out-of-hours work for which payment had not been received. It found that the claimant did not substantially dispute the issues during the process, and that he increasingly required communications to be routed through his solicitor. The respondent investigated the concerns, used Peninsula on more than one occasion, attempted discussion and mediation, and ultimately dismissed the claimant by letter dated 1 March 2023 after concluding that the working relationship between the claimant and ST had irretrievably broken down.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the dismissal was part of a long-term plan to enable ST or BHSL to obtain all the shares in the respondent. It found that theory inherently implausible, including because there was no evidence of such a plan being acted on for nearly a decade, there was no evidence that ST had instigated the complaints, and the terms of the joint venture agreement would in any event have treated the claimant as a bad leaver if dismissed. On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal found that the genuine reason for dismissal was the irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between the claimant and ST, which it held was capable of amounting to some other substantial reason.

Applying s.98 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent had shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances. It found no procedural flaw: the claimant had been invited to meetings, told the process could result in dismissal, given opportunities to respond, and offered an appeal which he did not take up. The tribunal also held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.