Mr C Hemingway v Cash Converters Yorkshire Limited — 2025

The claimant, a Store Manager with the respondent since January 2015, was dismissed on 10 April 2025 for gross misconduct after selling a personal item (an Airbrush) to the store on 26 March 2025 for £40 without obtaining authorisation from his Regional Manager, contrary to the 'Employee Usage' policy. The Airbrush was subsequently sold for £19.99, leading to a financial loss of £20.01.

The Employment Judge accepted the dismissal was for the reason given. On the question of reasonableness under s.98(4) ERA 1996, the judge found it was reasonable for the respondent to be suspicious of the claimant's account that he had misunderstood the policy changes communicated by an October 2024 email (the relevant part of which had not changed for store managers selling their own items), and that his explanations regarding the abbreviations 'SM' and 'RM' were inconsistent and damaged his credibility. The judge applied the third Hadjioannou factor on comparators, finding the only truly comparable individual (DV) had also been dismissed and that DV's subsequent re-engagement related to a relationship with the founders that the claimant did not have.

While the judge identified some procedural shortcomings (a reasonable employer would have engaged further with the claimant's inconsistency-of-treatment assertions, and the appeal officer Mr Ward had become frustrated during the hearing), neither rendered the procedure outside the range of reasonable responses, and they would very unlikely have made a difference to the outcome. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

Source tags (gov.uk)

• Unfair Dismissal

• s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
• range of reasonable responses
• Hadjioannou (comparator/inconsistency)

The full judgment is available on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

• Download judgment (PDF) ↗