Cases4106784/2023

Claimant v Metix Limited

2 June 2025Before Employment Judge B CampbellScotlandin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed for conduct. She downloaded approximately 35,000 files from the company system outside office hours shortly after her partner was suspended, including confidential IP and technical documents beyond what was required for the legitimate data room exercise. The respondent genuinely believed she committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief based on IT records, and conducted a reasonable investigation. Dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses given the breach of trust and her senior position as Finance Director and de facto HR head.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The respondent admitted it had not paid the claimant her salary for the period between 6 and 13 September 2023. The tribunal upheld this claim despite the respondent's argument that it could not calculate deductions because the claimant had not provided access to payroll information.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The respondent admitted it had not paid the claimant for accrued but untaken annual leave up to the termination date. The tribunal upheld this claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Facts

Ms Zakharova and Mr Guerrero were co-founders, directors, and shareholders of Metix Ltd, a medical device company. They began employment in November 2013. On 7 July 2023, Mr Guerrero (CEO) attempted to summarily dismiss the Chief Operating Officer without proper process after a confrontational appraisal meeting. He was suspended. On 12 July 2023, approximately 35,000 files including confidential IP were downloaded using Ms Zakharova's (Finance Director) credentials. She was also suspended. Following investigation and disciplinary hearings which the claimants refused to attend (pending grievance appeal outcomes), both were dismissed for gross misconduct on 13 September 2023. They appealed unsuccessfully.

Decision

The tribunal found both claimants were fairly dismissed for conduct. The respondent genuinely believed they committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds based on evidence gathered through proper investigation, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses given the seniority of their roles and breach of trust. However, the tribunal upheld claims for unpaid salary (6-13 September 2023) and accrued holiday pay, to be quantified at a remedy hearing.

Practical note

Even senior employees and company founders with significant shareholdings can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct where there is clear evidence of serious breaches of trust, provided the employer follows a reasonable process including proper investigation, opportunity to respond, and meaningful appeal - and the procedural objections raised do not materially prejudice the employee's ability to defend themselves.

Legal authorities cited

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1983] ICR 17

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(1)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(2)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(4)Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.13Employment Rights Act 1996 s.86Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.13AWorking Time Regulations 1998 reg.14

Case details

Case number
4106784/2023
Decision date
2 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Finance Director and de facto head of HR
Service
10 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No