Gareth Hudson v William Hill Organisation Limited — 2025

The tribunal found that the claimant, a Team Leader at the respondent's Netherton licensed betting office, admitted failing to follow the respondent's cash-control and payout procedures over 27 to 29 April 2024. The admitted failures included not processing two SSBT tickets through EPoS on 27 April, not carrying out daily cash, insert and safe declarations over the period, wrongly processing tickets that had already been handled, and confirming on 28 April that business checks had been completed when they had not. The tribunal accepted that one shortage of `£200` remained unaccounted for and that the respondent regarded the procedures as important for financial control and anti-money laundering compliance.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that Danielle Sayer had a personal issue with him or that the dismissal was pre-determined. It accepted that there may have been a failure to provide Ms Tinsley's investigation report before the disciplinary hearing, but held that this did not make the process unfair because the claimant understood the allegations, had the investigation meeting notes, and was able to answer the case against him. The tribunal also held that the appeal process was not unfair because Alexandra Freckleton carried out further enquiries, including speaking to Ms Sayer, Phil Spencer and Ms Tinsley, and the fact that the appeal outcome took longer than the policy's usual 10 days did not make the dismissal unfair.

Applying the Burchell approach, s.98(4) ERA 1996, the band of reasonable responses, and the authorities cited by the respondent, the tribunal held that the respondent had an honest and reasonable belief in misconduct after a reasonable investigation. It found that the claimant's admitted failures over three days were serious in a cash-heavy business, exposed the respondent to risk of loss and money-laundering issues, and justified dismissal. The tribunal also found that the claimant's references to concentration problems, possible ADHD and hemochromatosis were not supported by medical evidence and had not been properly advanced to the respondent at the time. On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claimant's conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to gross misconduct and to entitle the respondent to dismiss without notice.