Ms K Zakharova v Metix Limited — 2024

The claimants were co-founders, directors and shareholders of Metix Ltd and were both dismissed on 13 September 2023 after separate disciplinary processes. The tribunal found that the first claimant had downloaded a substantial volume of company files using her access credentials on 12 July 2023, including technical, HR and personal data, and that the second claimant had instructed senior staff not to report to the chair, had a falling out with Mr Smith over his appraisal, and intended to dismiss Mr Smith without the process advised by HR. The tribunal also found that the respondent then ran grievance and appeal processes, and that the dismissals were upheld on appeal on 16 October 2023.

On the unfair dismissal claims, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct within s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996 and that the respondent acted reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It applied the Burchell approach, and the Sainsbury's v Hitt guidance on investigation, and held that the respondent genuinely believed each claimant was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal also held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to the respondent.

The tribunal rejected the claimants' case that the dismissals were driven by a wish to remove them as shareholders or to dilute their influence. It found that any possible benefit to other shareholders was not the motive for the disciplinary steps, and that the respondent's concern was the claimants' own conduct and the risk that conduct posed to the business. It also held that the decision to proceed with the disciplinary hearings in the claimants' absence, after postponements and where separate grievance issues remained outstanding, did not make the dismissals unfair.

The tribunal separately found that the respondent had not paid salary for part of September 2023 or accrued holiday pay on termination, and those breach of contract and Working Time Regulations claims succeeded. It also recorded that employer pension contributions were outstanding or not fully quantifiable on the evidence, but no remedy figure was fixed at liability stage. Compensation for the successful contract and holiday claims, and any other remedy, was left to a future hearing if the parties could not agree the figures.