Claimant v Tradition Management Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. The respondent conceded unfairness on procedural grounds. The claimant was not given a formal disciplinary hearing, was not informed of allegations, was not given opportunity to respond, and was not offered any right of appeal. The decision to dismiss by summary termination was outside the band of reasonable responses given the lack of clarity communicated to the claimant about what was prohibited, and the extensive deliberate breaches of ACAS Code.
The tribunal found the claimant's conduct did not amount to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. The claimant's failures (underplaying involvement, not seeking clarity) did not on their own or together constitute a fundamental breach. Other employees made similar mistakes but were not dismissed. The respondent had not made its position clear until November 2022. Notice pay for 17.5 weeks was therefore due.
Relates to the notice pay claim above — claimant succeeded in recovering contractual notice pay of 17.5 weeks.
Facts
Claimant was a senior broker on Collateral Baskets Desk at a financial services firm. Between April 2021 and November 2022, various practices to mitigate Crest fines (splitting and switching trades) were used by the desk with claimant's knowledge and involvement. Respondent's policies on whether these practices were prohibited were unclear and inconsistently communicated. In November 2022, claimant and team were suspended and respondent instructed external lawyers (Greenberg Traurig) to investigate at cost exceeding £1m. In August 2023, CEO dismissed claimant summarily for gross misconduct following verbal briefing from investigators, without any disciplinary hearing or appeal.
Decision
Tribunal found dismissal procedurally unfair with extensive deliberate breaches of ACAS Code. Respondent failed to clearly communicate that Crest fine mitigation was prohibited until November 2022. Claimant not guilty of gross misconduct, so entitled to notice pay. However, claimant contributed 50% by lack of transparency and failing to seek clarity. Polkey reduction of 50% applied as fair dismissal would likely have occurred anyway after one month. 25% ACAS uplift applied. Respondent's counterclaim for signing bonus repayment dismissed. Remedy quantum to be determined at hearing in October 2025.
Practical note
Employers must clearly communicate policies, especially on complex regulatory compliance issues, and follow fair procedures even when an expensive external investigation has been conducted — dismissing summarily without a disciplinary hearing or appeal will result in unfair dismissal, substantial ACAS uplift, and potential notice pay liability.
Adjustments
50% chance that respondent would have dismissed the claimant in any event had a fair procedure been followed, which would have taken one month longer
Claimant was not transparent about knowing internal splitting occurred, underplayed his role in Crest fine mitigation in Greenberg interview, and should have sought clarity from management
Respondent breached ACAS Code extensively and deliberately: no disciplinary hearing, claimant not informed of problem, no opportunity to be accompanied, no appeal. Breaches were closer to total than partial and deliberate. Full 25% uplift applied.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200423/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Broker (latterly Desk Head on the Collateral Baskets Desk)
- Salary band
- £100,000+
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister