Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

The facts in Daughters v Aqua Financial Solutions Ltd

Miss Daughters (“the Claimant”) was the founder of Aqua Financial Solutions Limited (“the Respondent”) and under the terms of her contract she had commenced employment with the Respondent on 22 June 2001. In June 2007 Miss Daughters sold her majority shareholding to Miss Bennett, a friend and client of Miss Daughters’.

On 22 January 2010 the Claimant called Miss Bennett and confessed that she had insulted a client of the Respondent’s that evening. Miss Bennett believed that the Claimant had been drinking and reprimanded the Claimant. The next morning the offended client contacted Miss Daughters and complained to her. Miss Daughters was extremely embarrassed by this. However, the Claimant apologised to the client and the client accepted the apology.

However, the client again met with the Claimant on 23 January 2010. It was clear to the client that the Claimant had again been drinking. The client was concerned about this and was also concerned about their confidentiality and being pressured into a fee agreement that evening by the Claimant. The client again complained to Miss Bennett.

The Claimant was subjected to a disciplinary for gross misconduct. Miss Bennett further believed that there had been an irrevocable breakdown in mutual trust and confidence between herself and the Claimant. The Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 12 March 2010 after a disciplinary hearing on 10 March 2010. The Claimant subsequently complained to the Employment Tribunal on the grounds of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The Employment Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s claims and the Claimant appealed on the following grounds:

  1. That the Tribunal applied the incorrect test to determine fairness of dismissal by reason of misconduct
  2. That the Tribunal’s finding on genuine belief was perverse
  3. That the Tribunal had failed to give reasons for its finding of genuine belief
  4. That the Tribunal did not adequately consider the reasonableness of the dismissal
  5. That the Tribunal failed to identify how or why it considered that reasonable investigations had been undertaken
  6. That the Tribunal substituted its own view on fairness
  7. That the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for why the Claimant’s conduct justified a finding of gross misconduct
  8. That the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the issue of third-party pressure in unfair dismissal cases
  9. That the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its finding against the heading of wrongful dismissal

The law relating to Daughters v Aqua Financial Solutions Ltd (unfair dismissal)

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. There are two “branches” of fairness in a dismissal:

  1. Substantive unfair dismissal
  2. Procedural unfair dismissal

In order for a dismissal to be substantively fair, a Respondent must:

  1. Conduct a reasonable investigation into the allegations made against the Claimant
  2. Have reasonable belief in the Claimant’s guilt as a result of the reasonable investigation
  3. Have a genuine belief in the Claimant’s guilt

A dismissal will be procedurally unfair if, for example, a Respondent treats the Claimant in an inconsistent manner or if there is a lack of a reasonable investigation or disciplinary procedure.

Substantive and procedural unfair dismissal therefore very much intertwine. However, the Claimant’s case in Daughters v Aqua Financial Solutions Ltd mainly focussed (as can be seen above) on the element of substantive fairness.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Daughters v Aqua Financial Solutions Ltd

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the Claimant’s appeal. It found that the Employment Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons on a number of the grounds of appeal, including that the disciplinary hearing and appeal did not address serious issues of fact that was in dispute, that the Tribunal had incorrectly discounted the pressure brought to bear by Miss Bennett on the disciplinary hearing, and that Employment Tribunal had not adequately considered the reasonableness of the Respondent’s genuine belief in the Claimant’s guilt. The case was therefore remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal.

Our thoughts on Daughters v Aqua Financial Solutions Ltd

This case appears to be, prima facie, a situation where on the bare facts the Respondent may be justified in dismissing the Claimant as a result of his or her behaviour. However, it also highlights the problems that can arise if the disciplinary hearing is not competently carried out or there is undue pressure from a third party on the outcome of such a hearing. Employers should ensure that when a disciplinary hearing is conducted that impartial managers (if available) carry out a competent investigation and disciplinary and that there is no third party pressure which could jeopardise a (potentially) fair finding of misconduct.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog. Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Tagged with →  
Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk


4.64 Average

28 Reviews


Excellent service from initial contact to deliverables.

Posted 2 days ago

Virginia K

Yes, Chris Hadrill answered all my questions and I feel more confident with my current situation

Posted 2 days ago


Chris Hadrill was referred to me my a friend of mine. I found the service to be efficient, quick and like Chris's direct approach to my work. Well done and thank you Chris!

Posted 4 days ago

Andy W

Very prompt & structured service that helped put my mind at rest at a difficult time

Posted 6 days ago


I have found Redmans to be very helpful, diligant and thoroughly professional when dealing with them, plus they gone that extra mile for me !

Posted 3 weeks ago


Thank you to Chris Hadrill at Redmans for his assistance in settling my case. I contacted him at the very last minute and he was happy to help me and managed to get everything done on time and in a very professional manner. I will definitely be happy to work with him again .

Posted 3 weeks ago

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 4 months ago


Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 4 months ago


Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 4 months ago


At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 4 months ago


Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 5 months ago


Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 5 months ago


Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 5 months ago


Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 5 months ago


Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 5 months ago


Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 5 months ago


Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 5 months ago


Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 5 months ago


Resolved my issues

Posted 5 months ago


Quick fast professional service.

Posted 5 months ago


"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 5 months ago