Cases6008673/2024

Claimant v Aurorium UK Limited

16 October 2025Before Employment Judge L RobertsonNewcastleremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt of gross misconduct (serious negligence), conducted a reasonable investigation, and acted within the band of reasonable responses in dismissing the claimant. The tribunal held that management were entitled to conclude the claimant was seriously negligent in: (1) failing to familiarise himself with the Rabobank loan covenant restricting inter-company loans, leading to a breach when €7.8m was loaned; and (2) failing proactively to keep Rabobank informed of deteriorating group financial performance during 2023 loan renewal negotiations. Despite significant mitigation (workload pressures, lack of legal advice, staff shortages), dismissal with pay in lieu of notice fell within the range of reasonable responses for a senior finance director responsible for managing banking relationships.

Facts

The claimant was Europe Finance Director for a chemicals group responsible for subsidiaries in UK, Belgium, Austria and Netherlands. In 2024, a Dutch bank (Rabobank) refused to renew a €32.5m loan facility to the Netherlands subsidiary, citing unexpected poor 2023 group results and breach of a covenant prohibiting inter-company loans over €250k. The claimant had approved €7.8m in inter-company loans to Austria without realising this breached the Rabobank covenant, and had not proactively informed the bank of deteriorating group performance during refinancing negotiations. He was under severe workload pressure managing four countries with significant staff shortages and had delegated day-to-day bank relationship management to a subordinate.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It held that the respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct consisting of serious negligence. Management were entitled to conclude that as a senior finance director responsible for banking relationships, the claimant should have familiarised himself with loan covenants and proactively managed the Rabobank relationship, despite workload pressures and lack of legal advice. The decision to dismiss with pay in lieu of notice (reflecting mitigation) was reasonable.

Practical note

Senior finance directors can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct where they fail to familiarise themselves with key banking covenants and proactively manage critical banking relationships, even where workload pressures exist and subordinates handle day-to-day matters.

Legal authorities cited

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] IRLR 563Foley v Post Office [2000] ICR 1283Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(1)ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.98(2)(b)

Case details

Case number
6008673/2024
Decision date
16 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Europe Finance Director
Salary band
£80,000–£100,000
Service
16 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor