Mr M I Khan v His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mr M I Khan’s claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against HMRC. Mr Khan had worked as a Higher Officer in Counter Avoidance since May 2019. The dispute concerned alleged work avoidance and neglect of duties between 18 April and 18 June 2024. His manager’s review credited 56.26 hours of work against 246.5 hours recorded on the flexi system, leaving 190.24 hours unaccounted for. The tribunal accepted that the manager had used generous estimates when calculating time spent on identified tasks.

Mr Khan maintained that he had worked during the disputed hours but had not fully recorded his work on HMRC’s systems. He said he used handwritten notes and updated electronic records later. The tribunal found that the documents he supplied showed limited, sporadic work, with duplicated material, tasks completed by others and tasks outside the review period. He supplied no copies of the alleged handwritten notes during the internal proceedings or the tribunal case. The tribunal rejected his explanation that data protection concerns and the absence of in-person meetings prevented disclosure, noting that sensitive information could have been redacted. It inferred that any such notes did not support his account of the disputed hours.

The tribunal found that HMRC’s investigation fell within the range of reasonable responses. Although the process was protracted, Mr Khan retained access to HMRC’s systems and had substantial time to explain his work and provide supporting evidence. The allegations were explained at each stage, and HMRC considered the documents he submitted. The tribunal rejected the argument that the investigation needed to examine other employees’ practices or those of previous managers. It also found that HMRC’s failure to request the handwritten notes specifically was not unreasonable, given the opportunities to submit supporting evidence. The appeal manager carefully considered the grounds of appeal before upholding dismissal.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal found that conduct was the reason for dismissal and that HMRC genuinely believed Mr Khan had committed misconduct on reasonable grounds. The dismissing manager relied heavily on the line manager and investigator without conducting her own investigation or knowing Mr Khan’s particular work area. The tribunal found that reliance reasonable on the evidence available. Mr Khan had not supplied a sufficiently detailed account, supported by evidence, to explain the gaps in his output or call the investigation’s conclusions into question.

The tribunal also found dismissal within the range of reasonable responses. HMRC considered mitigation concerning Mr Khan’s high blood pressure and stress relating to his mother’s health but decided those matters did not excuse the conduct. An occupational health assessment recommended a stress reduction plan, which was put in place. The tribunal concluded that the seriousness of the misconduct, the resulting loss of trust and the limited mitigation supported dismissal as a reasonable response.