Claimant v Atelier Homes Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation)

The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent because the appeal process was fundamentally flawed. The appeal was conducted by the same person (the fifth respondent) who had investigated the allegations, violating basic principles of procedural fairness. Despite finding the reason for dismissal was conduct (a potentially fair reason), the unfair appeal process rendered the dismissal unfair overall.

The claimant was entitled to three months' notice pay under his contract. The first respondent dismissed him without providing notice or payment in lieu. The tribunal awarded damages reflecting the net loss of three months' salary plus car allowance and medical insurance.

The tribunal found the claimant did not make any protected disclosures. The alleged disclosures either lacked sufficient factual content and specificity to constitute 'information' showing criminal offences or legal breaches, or the claimant did not hold a reasonable belief they were in the public interest. The tribunal found many allegations were raised only after suspension, motivated by anger rather than genuine concern.

Because the tribunal found no protected disclosures were made, the detriment claims necessarily failed. Even if disclosures had been made, the tribunal was satisfied all alleged detriments (suspension, removal from servers, dismissal, etc.) were motivated by the third, fourth and fifth respondents' genuine concerns about the claimant's financial management of the companies, not any disclosures.

The first respondent failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars as required by statute. The tribunal awarded two weeks' pay (capped at statutory maximum) as compensation for this breach.