Case 6008673/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Steven Snaith v Aurorium UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008673/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Steven Snaith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as Europe Finance Director and was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice after the respondent concluded that he had committed gross misconduct by serious negligence in the performance of his duties. The issues arose from events connected with Rabobank's withdrawal of funding from Aurorium Netherlands after covenant breaches and unexpected poor financial results.
The tribunal considered the claimant's senior role, the respondent's findings about his responsibility, the investigation and disciplinary process, and the appeal. It found that the respondent's management were entitled, as reasonable management, to conclude that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct justifying dismissal, while taking account of mitigation by paying notice.
The tribunal stated that it was not deciding for itself whether the claimant was guilty of serious negligence amounting to gross misconduct. Its conclusion was that the dismissal decision was within the range of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- range of reasonable responses
- s.98(4) 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.