Claimant v Ecotricity Group Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent held a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct (unauthorised disclosure of confidential company information to his sister-in-law, Ms Kate Vince, for use in her divorce proceedings), conducted a reasonable investigation, drew reasonable conclusions that the claimant had committed gross misconduct, and reasonably concluded that dismissal was the appropriate sanction. The claimant had admitted passing the information, knowing it would be used in the divorce proceedings, and the tribunal found this constituted a paradigm breach of mutual trust and confidence.
Facts
The claimant, employed since 2008 as Sustainability Lead, was brother-in-law to Ms Kate Vince, who was in divorce proceedings with Mr Dale Vince (founder and main shareholder of the respondent). In September 2023, the claimant provided Ms Vince with confidential company information about assets and finances in response to her requests, which he admitted was to assist her in the divorce proceedings. He was suspended on 25 October 2023, investigated, and dismissed on 17 November 2023 for gross misconduct (unauthorised disclosure of confidential information). The claimant argued Ms Vince was entitled to the information as a director and that his dismissal was predetermined by Mr Dale Vince due to family connections.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, and reasonably concluded that dismissal was appropriate. The claimant had admitted passing confidential information knowing it would be used for personal divorce proceedings rather than any business purpose, constituting a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.
Practical note
An employee who uses their position to disclose company information to a family member for use in personal legal proceedings, even if that family member is a director, will be found to have committed gross misconduct warranting dismissal where the disclosure was for a non-business purpose and without proper authorisation from senior management.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1400616/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Sustainability Lead
- Service
- 16 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister