Mr G Rohan v Ansador Limited — 2025

Mr G Rohan worked for Ansador Limited as Projects Director from September 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent's dismissal decision in March 2024 was driven by a loss of confidence that arose during the claimant's sick leave, together with project concerns discovered while he was absent, a prior final written warning in November 2023, and continuing suspicion about his personal service company. It did not accept that the card use, parking fines and vehicle costs were the real reason for dismissal, although those matters contributed to mistrust.

Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal held that the respondent may have had grounds to dismiss after discovering the inauthentic client letter and related concerns, but the dismissal process fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal found the allegations were not properly and clearly specified, not all relevant written evidence was supplied in advance, the claimant was refused adequate time to prepare, and the investigation reopened matters that had already been dealt with in the November warning. It also found the appeal process did not cure those defects.

The tribunal therefore upheld unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. For wrongful dismissal, it held that the claimant's conduct after the warning did not amount to gross misconduct and that he was entitled to notice under his contract, but it did not quantify the notice pay in this judgment. On the wages claim, it found the claimant had not been paid for 4 days in February 2024 and rejected the respondent's limitation argument, but it also found the respondent was entitled to recover most of the disputed card and expense items and made no final payment order because of the set-off issues it identified under s.25 ERA 1996. The expenses claim failed because the tribunal did not see evidence of a separate expenses debt due to the claimant.

The tribunal also found the claimant had committed blameworthy conduct that contributed to the dismissal, including the inauthentic correspondence to a client, the failure to shut down his company promptly, breach of the absence-reporting policy, personal use of the company card and parking fines. It said any contribution, ACAS uplift or reduction, and the final remedy position would be dealt with at a later remedy hearing.