Mr P McPhail v Mr D Butt Student (23-24 March 2026) Lifeways Group (Living Ambitions) — 2026

Mr P McPhail was employed by Lifeways Group as a support worker from 12 August 2018 until his summary dismissal on 18 April 2025. The claim before the tribunal was unfair dismissal only. The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct after upholding allegations that he had taken a service user to his home on New Year's Day, failed to document the support and places visited in the daily diary or Nourish, and failed to declare a conflict of interest concerning professional boundaries.

The tribunal applied the Burchell test and accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct. It found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for that belief. The claimant admitted taking the service user to his home. The tribunal found it was reasonable for the respondent to rely on its policies, the SSSC code of practice and the claimant's training, and to disbelieve the claimant's later position that he had prior approval from a deputy manager, where that point had not been raised at the investigation stage or in his email commenting on the investigation notes.

The tribunal also found reasonable grounds for the respondent's conclusions on record keeping and conflict of interest. It accepted that the visit was not recorded in the daily diary, that a communication book entry was not sufficient for that purpose, and that the claimant knew of the requirement to keep daily records. It also accepted that the respondent had reasonable grounds to view the claimant's relationship with the service user and the service user's brother as raising professional-boundary and conflict-of-interest issues.

On investigation and procedure, the tribunal considered criticisms including alleged inaccuracies in the investigation minutes, failure to interview Elizabeth McKnight and Amir Hafiz, missing documentation, the involvement of Ms McKnight, and the claimant attending disciplinary and appeal hearings unaccompanied. It found that the investigation was sufficiently thorough in the circumstances and that there was no procedural unfairness making dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses. Although the claimant relied on his length of service, unblemished record, asserted good intentions and the later SSSC decision to take no action, the tribunal concluded that summary dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.