Claimant v Dark Star Asset Management Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. The claimant, as a qualified accountant and compliance officer, had knowingly participated in making prohibited introducer payments disguised as legitimate invoices, breaching FCA regulations. The procedure was fair and in accordance with the ACAS Code. Summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness of the regulatory breaches and the claimant's senior compliance role.
The tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was in fundamental breach of her employment contract. As a qualified accountant and compliance officer, she had a duty to oppose the prohibited introducer payments but instead actively participated in facilitating them through disguised invoices. This constituted repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal without notice.
Facts
The claimant was managing director and compliance officer of an FCA-regulated investment firm. After new ownership in June 2023, it was discovered that she had actively facilitated prohibited inducement payments to client introducers, disguised through false invoices for services never provided. These payments violated MiFID II and FCA regulations. The claimant had obtained legal advice in 2022 confirming the payments were problematic but continued making them into 2023. She failed to disclose this during due diligence meetings with the new owner and gave evasive answers when confronted.
Decision
Both claims dismissed. The tribunal found the belief in misconduct was genuine and based on reasonable grounds after proper investigation. The procedure followed the ACAS Code. Summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness of regulatory breaches by a senior compliance officer. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed as the claimant's conduct amounted to fundamental breach of contract justifying summary dismissal.
Practical note
A senior employee with compliance responsibilities who actively participates in regulatory breaches, rather than opposing them, commits gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal even where more senior colleagues were also involved.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2217609/2024
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Managing Director
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No