Cases→2403371/2024

Claimant v Albert Farnell Limited

26 October 2025Before Employment Judge DennehyManchesterremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found that while the respondent had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds that the claimant committed gross misconduct by forging a signature, the investigation was insufficient, the procedure unfair, and alternatives to dismissal were not considered. The respondent failed to conduct further enquiries on disputed facts, did not use an independent investigator, and did not explore mitigating factors such as the claimant's long service and clean disciplinary record before imposing summary dismissal.

Facts

The claimant, a service manager with 11 years' unblemished service at a car dealership, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent concluded he had forged another manager's signature on a policy form allocating repair costs of £1,343.93 to the sales department. The claimant consistently denied forging the signature. He was not given formal notice of the investigation meeting, his line manager conducted the investigation despite a deteriorating relationship, and no further enquiries were made when the claimant disputed witness evidence and suggested alternative explanations. The claimant refused to appeal because he did not want reinstatement.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because although the employer had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds that the claimant committed misconduct, the investigation was inadequate, the procedure unfair, and alternatives to summary dismissal were not considered for a long-serving employee with no previous disciplinary record. However, the tribunal applied a 75% reduction to the basic award for the claimant's contributory conduct in not being transparent about completing the form, and a 25% reduction to the compensatory award for unreasonably refusing to engage with the appeal process.

Practical note

Even where an employer has a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds, dismissal will be unfair if the investigation fails to properly explore disputed facts, an independent investigator is not used where there are relationship issues, and mitigating factors such as long service are not considered before imposing summary dismissal.

Adjustments

Contributory fault75%

The claimant was not transparent in explaining how the policy form was completed, only answered specific questions asked rather than giving fuller explanations, was preoccupied with unfounded conspiracy theories, and did not appreciate the seriousness of his position or seek legal advice

ACAS reduction-25%

The claimant refused to attend an appeal, denying the respondent the opportunity to remedy defects in the disciplinary process. This was an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code

Legal authorities cited

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613Trust Houses Forte Leisure Ltd v Aquilar [1976] IRLR 251Maintenance Co Ltd v Dormer [1982] IRLR 491Harrow London Borough v Cunningham [1996] IRLR 256Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.118ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.122(2)ERA 1996 s.123TULR(C)A 1992 s.207(2)

Case details

Case number
2403371/2024
Decision date
26 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Albert Farnell Limited
Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Service Manager
Service
11 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →