Connor Wright successfully argued for 100% reduction in the compensation payable.
Connor represented the Respondent in a liability hearing that was heard across five days. The Respondent was a sole trader. The Claimant was given substantial control over the day-to-day operation of the Respondent’s business interests. The Claimant was dismissed for three alleged grounds of misconduct:
- Taking unauthorised sums of money from the Respondent, over and above their wages over at least six years;
- Making unauthorised changes to their holiday record in 2024, resulting in potential overpayments of holiday pay; and
- Making unauthorised changes to her contract of employment.
The Claimant was later alleged to have also:
- Claimed business costs without authorisation; and
- Forged the respondent’s signature on business documents.
Substantial complexity was caused by the issue of the interaction between criminal proceedings and employment disputes, which had to be carefully navigated. Further, due to serious illness, the Respondent was unable to give oral evidence in the proceedings. This was important, since the relevant documentary evidence available to the Tribunal, including in relation to the Claimant’s proper wage and holiday records, was limited. Connor successfully defended against the Claimant’s application to exclude the Respondent’s witness statement.
It was found that the dismissal was, on its face, unfair, due to issues in the decision-making process by which the Claimant was dismissed. Connor, however, successfully argued that the Claimant had taken unauthorised sums of money from the Respondent. This included unauthorised increases to her own wage, and manipulating the Respondent’s holiday records to conceal excessive holiday that the Claimant had taken. Connor persuaded the Tribunal that the Claimant had done so dishonestly.
In light of the Tribunal’s findings of fact, the basic and compensatory awards were each reduced in accordance with justice and equity by 100%, in addition to a 50% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed, in accordance with the Polkey principle.
