Mr Stuart Lambert v Roof-Maker Ltd — 2026

Mr Stuart Lambert's complaint of unfair dismissal was upheld. Roof-Maker Ltd summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct on 26 August 2025 after concluding that he had falsified timesheets and claimed payment for hours not worked. The tribunal accepted that conduct, rather than redundancy or cost-saving, was the real reason for dismissal and that conduct was a potentially fair reason. It found insufficient evidence that redundancy was the real reason.

Applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell criteria, the tribunal found that Ms Owen honestly and genuinely believed Mr Lambert had falsely claimed for work he had not undertaken, but that the belief was not based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. It accepted Ms Mackay's evidence that Service Engineers commonly worked through breaks and added that time to their recorded hours, that she had approved their timesheets, and that directors or senior managers had not instructed her that the practice was wrong or must cease. Ms Owen's failure to investigate that explanation with Ms Mackay before dismissal concerned an issue central to whether the practice had management approval.

The tribunal also found the dismissal procedurally unfair. Mr Lambert was not given relevant documents or CCTV evidence before the disciplinary hearing; Ms Owen acted as both investigator and dismissing officer; there was no proper pre-dismissal investigation of his explanation; the dismissal letter did not explain the reasons for the decision; and the procedure left no more senior person to determine the appeal. Mr Nicholson also relied at the appeal stage on an undisclosed conversation with Mr Ashton. The tribunal found breaches of paragraphs 6 and 9 of the ACAS Code. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing, at which Polkey, contributory conduct and any ACAS Code uplift were to be considered; no monetary award was made in this judgment.