Ms M Clark v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2025

The claimant was dismissed following allegations about the vetting of a new employee, including that she had said vetting was complete when it was not, failed to inform management before annual leave, and failed to upload information to ID Gateway. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, but found the investigation was not reasonable. It found that the respondent did not reasonably investigate the documentary audit trail, the date the gap reference was received, the ID Gateway records, the normal practice for handovers before annual leave, or Ms Broadley's role.

The tribunal found the respondent did not have reasonable grounds to sustain the allegations. The evidence available showed the claimant had uploaded documents to ID Gateway, and the tribunal found the claimant had obtained the final gap reference before going on annual leave, so vetting was complete when the employee began training. It also found the claimant's 23 July email was an error, and that there was no established requirement for her to update management about outstanding work before annual leave.

The tribunal concluded that dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and that the respondent did not act reasonably overall, including because the claimant was denied access to material that could have assisted her defence and because reputational damage relied on in the dismissal had not occurred. The victimisation claim was dismissed: although the claimant established facts from which discrimination could be inferred, the tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation, including regular use of occupational health, interim adjustments being put in place, and explanations for the disciplinary process unconnected with the protected acts.