Cases3311839/2023

Claimant v Accountancy MK Services Limited

28 July 2025Before Employment Judge M MageeBury St Edmundsremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£14,120

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal concluded the real reason for dismissal was the employer's desire to dismiss the claimant before she accrued two years' service, not misconduct. The respondent did not hold a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after reasonable investigation. There was no prohibition on personal computer use, no performance history issues, and the claimant was not given an opportunity to explain herself. Dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.

Wrongful Dismissalwithdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant at the commencement of the hearing.

Unlawful Deduction from Wageswithdrawn

Holiday pay claim withdrawn by claimant at the commencement of the hearing.

Facts

The claimant was the only full-time employee of a small accountancy services company from October 2017 until her summary dismissal on 31 July 2023. The respondent alleged misconduct based on personal use of her work computer, installing spyware software to monitor her activity in July 2023. The tribunal found the respondent's evidence unreliable, including diary entries purporting to record performance concerns which the tribunal concluded were created after the fact for tribunal proceedings. The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the employer's desire to dismiss the claimant before she accrued two years' service, which the employer wrongly believed would be September 2023.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The respondent failed to establish a potentially fair reason, as the real reason was to dismiss before the claimant accrued qualifying service, not misconduct. Even if the reason had been conduct, there was no reasonable investigation, no reasonable grounds for belief, and dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. There was no prohibition on personal computer use and the claimant was given no opportunity to explain herself. The tribunal awarded a 20% ACAS uplift for failure to follow any procedure and made no reductions for contributory fault or Polkey.

Practical note

Employers who fabricate evidence and documentation for tribunal proceedings face severe credibility issues; tribunals will scrutinise inconsistencies in contemporaneous records and witness evidence to determine the true reason for dismissal.

Award breakdown

Basic award£2,064
Compensatory award£12,056
Pension loss£446
Loss of statutory rights£500

Adjustments

ACAS uplift+20%

20% uplift awarded for failing to follow the ACAS Code. No procedure was followed and the claimant was dismissed without an opportunity to explain herself.

Legal authorities cited

Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17Foley v Post Office [2000] ICR 1283Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] IRLR 563Selkent Bus v Moore [1996] ICR 836Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.98(2)

Case details

Case number
3311839/2023
Decision date
28 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Service
6 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor