Mr O. Lemboye v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs — 2026

Mr Lemboye's sole complaint was ordinary unfair dismissal. The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs dismissed him for gross misconduct on 31 January 2025 after he obtained unauthorised access to his sister-in-law's NPS-PAYE records and did not report the access to his manager. The Tribunal found that conduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that both the dismissing and appeal managers genuinely believed the access had been intentional.

The dismissal was nevertheless unfair because the investigation supporting the finding of intentional access fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The original decision relied significantly on an erroneous SADA report stating that Mr Lemboye had used his sister-in-law's name, date of birth and sex, rather than her National Insurance number. Although that error was corrected before the appeal, Mr Lemboye was not given the SADA report or investigation notes and was not asked about the inconsistencies on which the appeal manager relied. He therefore lacked a full opportunity to explain the access using the correct evidence. The Tribunal found this was the only reason the dismissal was unfair. The appeal had cured the dismissing manager's inadequate investigation of the possible effects of Mr Lemboye's sickle cell anaemia, the remainder of the procedure was fair, and there was no breach of the ACAS Code.

For Polkey purposes, the Tribunal considered Mr Lemboye's explanation alongside the SADA evidence showing the sequence of screens visited, the information displayed and the time spent on each screen. It found a 100% likelihood that, following a fair appeal, the appeal manager would still have concluded that the access was intentional and dismissed Mr Lemboye for gross misconduct. Dismissal on that basis would have fallen within the range of reasonable responses, so any compensatory award would be reduced by 100%.

The Tribunal separately found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Lemboye's access was intentional at least from the point when he viewed the individual summary screen, and that he knowingly failed to report it despite recognising the incident and discussing it with his wife. It found no evidential basis for concluding that sickle cell anaemia caused or contributed to the access or failure to report. His conduct was found to be the sole contributor to his dismissal, resulting in a 100% contributory-fault reduction to any basic and compensatory awards. Remedy was not otherwise determined and no monetary award was recorded.