Case 4111486/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Miles Ritchie v Represented by: Ms A Forsyth, Solicitor HBOS plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111486/2019
- Decision date
- 24 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Miles Ritchie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Miles Ritchie was employed by HBOS plc as a Mortgage Advisor from July 2013 until 20 June 2019, and for the last period of his employment he worked in a call-handling role. The respondent reviewed calls to and from his turret between 23 November and 18 December 2018 and concluded that a large number of inbound calls had been cut off without him speaking. The claimant was investigated on 24 December 2018, suspended on 15 January 2019, and later dismissed after a disciplinary hearing on 4 June 2019 and an appeal heard on 18 July 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent dismissed the claimant for misconduct, namely deliberate call cutting, and that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses after a reasonable investigation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found he had deliberately engaged in regular call cutting over a significant period, which amounted to a repudiatory breach entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Foley v Post Office; Midland Bank plc v Madden
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.207 TULRCA 1992
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.