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 →  

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

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

Testimonials

4.72 Average

88 Reviews

Anonymous

Responsive, patient, thorough and personable - an excellent service.

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

The team at Redmans, Chris Hadrill and Sacha Barrett were always very helpful and had expert knowledge to assist me during my employment law matter, I would not hesitate to recommend them to all!

Posted 2 days ago

Arun T

Chris was punctual, attentive and accurate. He answered my questions with clarity and avoided dubiosity. I would recommend him to anyone seeking legal advice within his remit.

Posted 3 days ago

Yulian Z

Great service

Posted 3 days ago

Anonymous

Excellent, professional service and a speedy resolution. Many thanks

Posted 3 days ago

Taral P

Sacha and Chris were both very helpful in closing out my matter. Sacha was very clear in helping me understanding the documents I needed reviewing, providing a professional service throughout.

Posted 3 days ago

Anonymous

Really pleased with the swift and professional service from Redmans. They provided very clear advice and helped conclude my matter with the minimum of stress or delay.

Posted 3 days ago

Matthew L

Redmans were very quick to respond to my initial enquiry, and provided me with a very effective and efficient service, generating a most satisfactory outcome. I would definitely use them again if the need arose.

Posted 3 days ago

Anonymous

First rate service. Warm and friendly whilst exceptionally efficient at the same time. I would highly recommend them.

Posted 3 days ago

Anonymous

Professional and helpful. Thorough and supportive.

Posted 3 days ago

Richard A

Excellent service, prompt replies, great advice

Posted 4 days ago

Anonymous

Very professional services

Posted 4 days ago

Margaret

Redmans Solicitors took a lot of the worry away and were very thoughtful and meticulous in their dealings with my case , thank you very mush , great service and a great job

Posted 1 month ago

Mark B

Prompt efficient service. Hourly, and part thereof, billing got a bit stressful at times - as opposed to flat fee - made me think twice about sending an email or making a quick call when I had a query because it would have eaten up minutes from my budget. But happy with the legal service I received overall and would recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill has provided a truly wonderful service and was willing to lend his support and expertise at a time when other solicitors, only wanted to discuss their fees! A clear thinking and down to earth professional, Chris can be trusted to listen carefully to your matter, cut through the fog, and advise you on the best (and most realistic) way forward, saving you time, money and heartache. It will be helpful if you first get your ducks in a row in terms of documents / evidence etc. and then contact Chris, (that’s what we did) as this will help your matter to be dealt with faster. The more organised and together you are the more successful you will be. You'll be fine with Chris, I highly recommend him. Good luck!

Posted 1 month ago

Richard v

Excellent Service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very happy from service received. Highly recommend

Posted 1 month ago

Colin W

Very professional and thorough. Sachs who dealt with the bulk of my case was excellent Thank you. .

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I was generally impressed with the fast turn around, efficiency, responsiveness, and consideration of circumstances. I needed a couple of areas of advice quickly and with Redmans help was able to get to a conclusion quickly and with minimum stress. They were friendly and professional throughout - I'd use them again.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

The guidance and assistance I recently received when using Redman's was fantastic. Caroline & Chris were both very informative and understanding walking me through each step. Thank you.

Posted 2 months ago

Nicola W

Fantastic service, very quick and efficient. Thank you

Posted 2 months ago