April 29, 2026
The claimant, formerly Head of Customer Services, was dismissed in April 2025 following allegations of accessing and sharing confidential material with a third party, Miss M, after she had been expressly instructed to cease all collaboration. Forensic digital evidence commissioned from an external specialist demonstrated that she had accessed restricted areas of the company’s systems while in communication with Miss M and had also accessed Miss M’s platform using her credentials.
During the internal investigation, the claimant initially stated that she had shared only a publicly available screenshot. When confronted with forensic evidence showing a wider flow of company documents—including policies, templates, and website materials, she admitted assisting Miss M and at one point indicated a desire to resign before retracting. She later developed multiple conflicting explanations, including that she acted under instruction from her line manager, which both the line manager and an independent HR professional unequivocally denied.
The claimant was suspended, interviewed, and invited to a disciplinary hearing, during which she declined to answer questions. An independent HR consultant determined that the company had reasonable grounds to conclude that she committed gross misconduct: breach of confidentiality, serious insubordination, and dishonesty during the investigation. An independent appeal upheld the decision. After dismissal, it was discovered that she had covertly recorded a meeting in breach of an express prohibition, which the Tribunal held would itself have justified summary dismissal.
The Tribunal applied the Burchell test and found that the employer believed she had committed the misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had conducted as much investigation as was reasonable. On procedural fairness, it accepted that although a director was involved at both investigation and disciplinary stages, the employer’s size and the presence of independent HR specialists meant the process remained fair. The claimant’s comparative treatment arguments and allegations of manipulation were unsupported.
On wrongful dismissal, applying Boardman and Voisin v Soares, the Tribunal made its own findings of fact and concluded that the claimant’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. Thus, both the unfair dismissal and unlawful dismissal claims were dismissed.
This judgment is a strong illustration of the Tribunal’s orthodox and structured application of the Burchell test to conduct dismissals. It emphasises that where an employer gathers credible forensic evidence, commissions independent HR support, and conducts a procedurally coherent process, even a claimant’s extensive alternative narrative will not displace a well founded belief in misconduct.
The case also underlines the Tribunal’s consistently narrow approach to “comparator” arguments. Disparity of treatment will be scrutinised closely, but only genuine parallels will suffice; allegations about other staff members’ misconduct will not help a claimant where those matters were not known to management at the time.
The Tribunal gives clear guidance on small employer realities: although dual involvement by a director in both investigation and disciplinary stages is normally undesirable, it is permissible where organisational size makes separation impracticable, provided independent safeguards exist.
Finally, the decision reinforces that covert recording contrary to an explicit prohibition can, in its own right, amount to gross misconduct. The Tribunal’s reliance on Boston Deep Sea Fishing demonstrates that post dismissal discoveries may retrospectively justify summary dismissal and defeat contractual notice claims.
Overall, the judgment offers a valuable practical reminder that employers who combine credible evidence, fair procedure, and independent oversight will be well placed to defend conduct based dismissals; and that employees must advance a consistent and corroborated factual case to displace such findings.
The claimant, formerly Head of Customer Services, was dismissed in April 2025 following allegations of accessing and sharing confidential material with a third party, Miss M, after she had been expressly instructed to cease all collaboration. Forensic digital evidence commissioned from an external specialist demonstrated that she had accessed restricted areas of the company’s systems while in communication with Miss M and had also accessed Miss M’s platform using her credentials.
During the internal investigation, the claimant initially stated that she had shared only a publicly available screenshot. When confronted with forensic evidence showing a wider flow of company documents—including policies, templates, and website materials, she admitted assisting Miss M and at one point indicated a desire to resign before retracting. She later developed multiple conflicting explanations, including that she acted under instruction from her line manager, which both the line manager and an independent HR professional unequivocally denied.
The claimant was suspended, interviewed, and invited to a disciplinary hearing, during which she declined to answer questions. An independent HR consultant determined that the company had reasonable grounds to conclude that she committed gross misconduct: breach of confidentiality, serious insubordination, and dishonesty during the investigation. An independent appeal upheld the decision. After dismissal, it was discovered that she had covertly recorded a meeting in breach of an express prohibition, which the Tribunal held would itself have justified summary dismissal.
The Tribunal applied the Burchell test and found that the employer believed she had committed the misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had conducted as much investigation as was reasonable. On procedural fairness, it accepted that although a director was involved at both investigation and disciplinary stages, the employer’s size and the presence of independent HR specialists meant the process remained fair. The claimant’s comparative treatment arguments and allegations of manipulation were unsupported.
On wrongful dismissal, applying Boardman and Voisin v Soares, the Tribunal made its own findings of fact and concluded that the claimant’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. Thus, both the unfair dismissal and unlawful dismissal claims were dismissed.
This judgment is a strong illustration of the Tribunal’s orthodox and structured application of the Burchell test to conduct dismissals. It emphasises that where an employer gathers credible forensic evidence, commissions independent HR support, and conducts a procedurally coherent process, even a claimant’s extensive alternative narrative will not displace a well founded belief in misconduct.
The case also underlines the Tribunal’s consistently narrow approach to “comparator” arguments. Disparity of treatment will be scrutinised closely, but only genuine parallels will suffice; allegations about other staff members’ misconduct will not help a claimant where those matters were not known to management at the time.
The Tribunal gives clear guidance on small employer realities: although dual involvement by a director in both investigation and disciplinary stages is normally undesirable, it is permissible where organisational size makes separation impracticable, provided independent safeguards exist.
Finally, the decision reinforces that covert recording contrary to an explicit prohibition can, in its own right, amount to gross misconduct. The Tribunal’s reliance on Boston Deep Sea Fishing demonstrates that post dismissal discoveries may retrospectively justify summary dismissal and defeat contractual notice claims.
Overall, the judgment offers a valuable practical reminder that employers who combine credible evidence, fair procedure, and independent oversight will be well placed to defend conduct based dismissals; and that employees must advance a consistent and corroborated factual case to displace such findings.
The claimant, formerly Head of Customer Services, was dismissed in April 2025 following allegations of accessing and sharing confidential material with a third party, Miss M, after she had been expressly instructed to cease all collaboration. Forensic digital evidence commissioned from an external specialist demonstrated that she had accessed restricted areas of the company’s systems while in communication with Miss M and had also accessed Miss M’s platform using her credentials.
During the internal investigation, the claimant initially stated that she had shared only a publicly available screenshot. When confronted with forensic evidence showing a wider flow of company documents—including policies, templates, and website materials, she admitted assisting Miss M and at one point indicated a desire to resign before retracting. She later developed multiple conflicting explanations, including that she acted under instruction from her line manager, which both the line manager and an independent HR professional unequivocally denied.
The claimant was suspended, interviewed, and invited to a disciplinary hearing, during which she declined to answer questions. An independent HR consultant determined that the company had reasonable grounds to conclude that she committed gross misconduct: breach of confidentiality, serious insubordination, and dishonesty during the investigation. An independent appeal upheld the decision. After dismissal, it was discovered that she had covertly recorded a meeting in breach of an express prohibition, which the Tribunal held would itself have justified summary dismissal.
The Tribunal applied the Burchell test and found that the employer believed she had committed the misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had conducted as much investigation as was reasonable. On procedural fairness, it accepted that although a director was involved at both investigation and disciplinary stages, the employer’s size and the presence of independent HR specialists meant the process remained fair. The claimant’s comparative treatment arguments and allegations of manipulation were unsupported.
On wrongful dismissal, applying Boardman and Voisin v Soares, the Tribunal made its own findings of fact and concluded that the claimant’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. Thus, both the unfair dismissal and unlawful dismissal claims were dismissed.
This judgment is a strong illustration of the Tribunal’s orthodox and structured application of the Burchell test to conduct dismissals. It emphasises that where an employer gathers credible forensic evidence, commissions independent HR support, and conducts a procedurally coherent process, even a claimant’s extensive alternative narrative will not displace a well founded belief in misconduct.
The case also underlines the Tribunal’s consistently narrow approach to “comparator” arguments. Disparity of treatment will be scrutinised closely, but only genuine parallels will suffice; allegations about other staff members’ misconduct will not help a claimant where those matters were not known to management at the time.
The Tribunal gives clear guidance on small employer realities: although dual involvement by a director in both investigation and disciplinary stages is normally undesirable, it is permissible where organisational size makes separation impracticable, provided independent safeguards exist.
Finally, the decision reinforces that covert recording contrary to an explicit prohibition can, in its own right, amount to gross misconduct. The Tribunal’s reliance on Boston Deep Sea Fishing demonstrates that post dismissal discoveries may retrospectively justify summary dismissal and defeat contractual notice claims.
Overall, the judgment offers a valuable practical reminder that employers who combine credible evidence, fair procedure, and independent oversight will be well placed to defend conduct based dismissals; and that employees must advance a consistent and corroborated factual case to displace such findings.
The claimant, formerly Head of Customer Services, was dismissed in April 2025 following allegations of accessing and sharing confidential material with a third party, Miss M, after she had been expressly instructed to cease all collaboration. Forensic digital evidence commissioned from an external specialist demonstrated that she had accessed restricted areas of the company’s systems while in communication with Miss M and had also accessed Miss M’s platform using her credentials.
During the internal investigation, the claimant initially stated that she had shared only a publicly available screenshot. When confronted with forensic evidence showing a wider flow of company documents—including policies, templates, and website materials, she admitted assisting Miss M and at one point indicated a desire to resign before retracting. She later developed multiple conflicting explanations, including that she acted under instruction from her line manager, which both the line manager and an independent HR professional unequivocally denied.
The claimant was suspended, interviewed, and invited to a disciplinary hearing, during which she declined to answer questions. An independent HR consultant determined that the company had reasonable grounds to conclude that she committed gross misconduct: breach of confidentiality, serious insubordination, and dishonesty during the investigation. An independent appeal upheld the decision. After dismissal, it was discovered that she had covertly recorded a meeting in breach of an express prohibition, which the Tribunal held would itself have justified summary dismissal.
The Tribunal applied the Burchell test and found that the employer believed she had committed the misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had conducted as much investigation as was reasonable. On procedural fairness, it accepted that although a director was involved at both investigation and disciplinary stages, the employer’s size and the presence of independent HR specialists meant the process remained fair. The claimant’s comparative treatment arguments and allegations of manipulation were unsupported.
On wrongful dismissal, applying Boardman and Voisin v Soares, the Tribunal made its own findings of fact and concluded that the claimant’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. Thus, both the unfair dismissal and unlawful dismissal claims were dismissed.
This judgment is a strong illustration of the Tribunal’s orthodox and structured application of the Burchell test to conduct dismissals. It emphasises that where an employer gathers credible forensic evidence, commissions independent HR support, and conducts a procedurally coherent process, even a claimant’s extensive alternative narrative will not displace a well founded belief in misconduct.
The case also underlines the Tribunal’s consistently narrow approach to “comparator” arguments. Disparity of treatment will be scrutinised closely, but only genuine parallels will suffice; allegations about other staff members’ misconduct will not help a claimant where those matters were not known to management at the time.
The Tribunal gives clear guidance on small employer realities: although dual involvement by a director in both investigation and disciplinary stages is normally undesirable, it is permissible where organisational size makes separation impracticable, provided independent safeguards exist.
Finally, the decision reinforces that covert recording contrary to an explicit prohibition can, in its own right, amount to gross misconduct. The Tribunal’s reliance on Boston Deep Sea Fishing demonstrates that post dismissal discoveries may retrospectively justify summary dismissal and defeat contractual notice claims.
Overall, the judgment offers a valuable practical reminder that employers who combine credible evidence, fair procedure, and independent oversight will be well placed to defend conduct based dismissals; and that employees must advance a consistent and corroborated factual case to displace such findings.