Ms L McComish v Represented by: Herself MacKenzie Taylor Asset Management Ltd — 2026

Ms McComish's sole claim was unfair dismissal. She was summarily dismissed on 4 June 2025 for gross misconduct. The Tribunal found that the sole reason for dismissal was Mr Canning's genuinely and honestly held belief that she had committed misconduct, rather than the separate dispute about her asserted entitlement to a shareholding. Conduct was a potentially fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Tribunal found that the respondent conducted a reasonable investigation. It obtained assistance from HR advisers and two IT specialists, gave Ms McComish detailed notice of the allegations and supporting material, held a disciplinary hearing at which she answered the allegations, and provided an appeal. Although Mr Canning conducted the investigation and made the original decision, the Tribunal accepted that the respondent was a small business and that he was realistically the only suitable person within it. The appeal was determined independently by Ms Hadwin, who reviewed the evidence and the points raised by Ms McComish. Considered as a whole, the procedure fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The Tribunal held that the respondent reasonably concluded that Ms McComish had deleted material from her work phone after being instructed not to use it; photographed a confidential and legally privileged email displayed on Mr Canning's computer; sent personal financial information to her private email account; disclosed sensitive information concerning the proposed sale of the business; shared confidential information with a colleague; and contacted the prospective buyer using information obtained through her employment. It found that photographing the confidential and privileged communication was by itself conduct justifying dismissal and that the other conduct, considered cumulatively, also justified that conclusion. Her senior role and responsibilities concerning confidentiality were relevant. Her long and previously unblemished service, the context of the shareholding dispute and the matters advanced in mitigation were considered, but summary dismissal remained within the range of reasonable responses.

The Tribunal therefore held that the dismissal was not unfair and dismissed the claim. No remedy was awarded. Polkey did not arise because the procedure was fair. The Tribunal nevertheless stated that, had compensation arisen, a 100% reduction for contributory conduct would have been just and equitable because the conduct underpinning the dismissal was established and was the sole reason for it.