Mrs A L Blanche st v Ltd st — 2024

The tribunal heard joined claims brought by sister and brother Amy Blanche and Stephen Boyd after both were dismissed following the sale of Boyd Brothers (Fauldhouse) Ltd into the BES Group. The dispute arose against the background of an earn-out under the share purchase agreement, under which additional consideration could depend on the company meeting EBITDA targets by 31 December 2022. Concerns were raised by external accountant Tim McInnes that December 2022 revenue and work-in-progress figures were overstated, and that a December invoice for the claimants' parents' Fauldhouse property had been issued before the work had been done.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the Fauldhouse invoice for £41,800 plus VAT was processed on 22 December 2022 despite no substantive work having been carried out apart from a small repair to an external light. It found that Amy Blanche consciously formalised and sent the invoice to her mother knowing the work had not been done, and that Stephen Boyd most likely told Ms Weir to invoice the job and set the amount, then later directed Amy Blanche in what to say to Mr McInnes. The tribunal also found that Stephen Boyd had overstated WIP and revenue in a number of respects, including duplicate Swarco invoicing and values placed on jobs where work had not yet started or supporting evidence was lacking. It treated the MacDonald payment and the IT access after suspension as relevant to trust, but not as the main basis for dismissal.

Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely believed both claimants had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It relied on the evidence gathered by Mr Lennox, Mr Hirst and Mr Kinsey, the follow-up investigation by HR, and the internal appeals heard by Mr Gill. The tribunal accepted that the respondent did not have to prove the misconduct beyond doubt, only that dismissal was based on a reasonable belief formed after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal also rejected the common law notice claims. It found that each claimant had materially breached the obligation of mutual trust and confidence, so the respondent was entitled to terminate summarily without notice pay. The final judgment therefore dismissed both the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claims. The separate accrued holiday complaints were not determined at that hearing and were left for further procedure, so no monetary award was made in this decision.