Ms R Oakley v Business Computer Projects Limited HELD AT: Manchester — 2025

Ms Oakley was employed by Business Computer Projects Limited as a Technical Author from 26 August 2008 until her dismissal on 16 August 2024. The respondent relied on gross misconduct, framed around data backup, alleged failure to report data loss, alleged provision of incorrect or insufficient information to management, and an allegation that she brought previous managers’ integrity into doubt. The tribunal accepted that the relevant question was whether the respondent had a genuine belief, on reasonable grounds and after a reasonable investigation, and whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal found the respondent’s backup policy was very limited and vague, and that the claimant had not been given a specific instruction to back up to any particular location. It found she had in fact been backing up work using the means made available to her, including shared spaces, DVDs and an external hard drive, and that she had been acting within the constraints of the access she was given. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s evidence about server access was consistent and that she had not implicated specific managers in the way the respondent alleged.

On the investigation and disciplinary process, the tribunal found Mr Marshall did not carry out reasonable investigations before concluding that the claimant had committed gross misconduct. It found the respondent had not properly analysed what data was lost, what remained accessible, or who may have been responsible for the issues with the D drive, and that important matters were not put to the claimant before the disciplinary meeting. It also found the process was procedurally unfair because Mr Marshall acted as investigator, accuser and decision maker, and because the appeal was handled by Mr Shield despite his prior involvement. The tribunal concluded the appeal did not cure the unfairness.

The tribunal held that dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses and that there should be no Polkey reduction or reduction for contributory fault. It therefore upheld the unfair dismissal complaint. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was left for a later hearing.