Claimant v Serious Waste Management Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent had shown on the balance of probabilities that the reason for dismissal was conduct. The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt based on a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant had admitted spending £12,280.76 of company money on personal items, leased a Maserati for his wife without authorisation, accessed the company website and changed the password after suspension, and the tribunal found the claimant's explanations entirely incredible.
Facts
The claimant was Managing Director and 20% shareholder of a waste management company from 2017 to February 2024. He was suspended in December 2023 for alleged unauthorised use of company funds. The respondent alleged 14 acts of gross misconduct including: spending £12,280.76 of company money on personal items, leasing a Maserati for his wife without authorisation, accessing and locking directors out of the company website, and deleting files. The claimant refused to participate in the disciplinary process citing ill health and outstanding DSAR requests. He was dismissed for gross misconduct on 29 February 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The judge found the reason for dismissal was conduct, that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's guilt based on reasonable investigation by independent HR consultants, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The judge found the claimant's explanations 'entirely incredible' and that he was 'guilty' of the misconduct alleged. The tribunal awarded costs of £12,000 against the claimant for unreasonably continuing the claim after a settlement offer.
Practical note
Even senior employees with shareholdings can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct involving misuse of company funds and resources, and tribunals will award costs where weak claims are pursued unreasonably after reasonable settlement offers.
Adjustments
Judge stated that if dismissal had been found procedurally unfair, the chance of fair dismissal if fair procedure used would have been 100%
Judge stated that if claimant had been unfairly dismissed, compensation would have been reduced by 100% as claimant was entirely the architect of his own misfortune by his conduct
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002458/2024
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Managing Director
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No