Claimant v Elite Medical Staffing Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Respondent admitted liability for unfair dismissal before the hearing. The dismissal was for some other substantial reason (breakdown of trust and confidence), but the Respondent failed to follow any fair dismissal process and did not take reasonable steps to improve the relationship before dismissing the Claimant. The tribunal found the breakdown was not irremediable and reasonable steps could have been taken, such as sharing independent consultant observations, which might have improved matters.
Facts
The Claimant was CEO of a healthcare recruitment company owned by the Respondent, a private equity backed entity. Following management buyout in 2018, the company experienced financial underperformance, worsened by 2022 UK immigration policy changes affecting demand. A new turnaround Chair (Mr Bates) was appointed in June 2024 who had differing strategic views from the Claimant. Relations deteriorated over the summer of 2024, with disagreements about strategy, sales focus, and the performance of the CFO. The Respondent dismissed the Claimant on 12 September 2024 without any process, citing loss of confidence due to underperformance. The Claimant had 15 years' service and was placed on 6 months' garden leave.
Decision
The Respondent admitted unfair dismissal. The tribunal found dismissal was for SOSR (breakdown of trust and confidence) but the Respondent failed to take reasonable steps to improve the relationship before dismissal, making it unfair. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £11,550 and compensatory award of £100,113.07 (grossed up). It applied a 50% Polkey reduction to the final 13 weeks of a 39-week loss period, uplifted the award by 25% for failure to comply with ACAS Code, but limited the loss period to 39 weeks due to the Claimant's failure to mitigate by not seeking alternative employment.
Practical note
Even where trust and confidence has broken down, employers must take reasonable steps to improve the relationship before dismissing for SOSR; the ACAS Code applies to SOSR dismissals rooted in conduct/performance issues, and setting up a new business can constitute mitigation only if the claimant also takes reasonable steps to seek alternative employment where the business has uncertain revenue prospects.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 46.5 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
50% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed after a six month period. Tribunal applied no reduction to first 26 weeks of loss, then 50% reduction to remaining 13 weeks to reflect the chance that after reasonable steps to improve relations, a fair dismissal for SOSR could have occurred.
Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The tribunal found the ACAS Code applied to the SOSR dismissal arising from conduct/performance leading to breakdown in working relationships. The Respondent took no steps to comply with the Code.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6014342/2024
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
- Salary band
- £100,000+
- Service
- 15 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister