Mr C Laidlaw v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) — 2018

The claimant, a DVSA traffic examiner, was dismissed after a disciplinary process concerning his involvement in developing and discussing the possible sale of a tachograph integrity checking device. The respondent ultimately relied on conduct, in particular the conclusion that the claimant had sought to use his official position to further his private interests when attending a meeting with Stoneridge Electronics while wearing a DVSA-branded shirt and discussing the device.

The tribunal found that conduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant had committed misconduct. It held that the investigation was reasonable: relevant witnesses were interviewed, the claimant had the opportunity to respond, and the concerns raised about appointment of the investigator, the handling of information from Stoneridge, and the absence of a note of a call with Graeme Mays did not make the investigation unreasonable.

The tribunal did not decide for itself whether the claimant intended the meeting to be commercial or wore the DVSA shirt to further private interests. It found that the respondent had objective evidence from which it could reasonably reach its belief, that the procedure including the appeal was fair, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses given the respondent's reliance on trust and integrity standards for the claimant's role. The claim was dismissed.