Computers In The City Ltd v Amamize

For wrongful dismissal, an employee’s dishonesty may justify summary dismissal where the contract expressly permits dismissal for dishonesty, or where it amounts to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Information discovered after dismissal may be relevant to the wrongful dismissal claim.

A finding of unfair dismissal may stand despite serious misconduct. The tribunal must separately assess, on a percentage basis, whether a fair procedure and reasonable investigation would probably have resulted in a fair dismissal. Any Polkey deduction is made before applying a contribution reduction.

The employee succeeded before the London Central Employment Tribunal in claims for wrongful and unfair dismissal. The tribunal found conduct to be a potentially fair reason but held that the employer lacked reasonable grounds because it had failed to investigate properly and had followed an unfair procedure. It made a 75 per cent contribution finding and awarded compensation.

The employer appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the tribunal had properly addressed contractual dishonesty, the effect of post-dismissal information, and the possibility of a Polkey deduction.

1. Wrongful dismissal. The tribunal’s reasoning was flawed because it failed to consider the contractual term permitting summary dismissal for dishonesty, whether or not connected with the employment. The evidence raised issues about the employee’s honesty in denying that he worked for another company and in information published about that company.
2. Information obtained after dismissal was immaterial to the wrongful dismissal claim, although it would not determine the fairness of the dismissal. The issue was remitted for reconsideration. Dishonesty is also capable of constituting a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
3. Unfair dismissal. The tribunal was entitled to find the dismissal unfair because the employer had failed to carry out a reasonable investigation and had committed procedural failures. The tribunal was not wrong to reject the exceptional Polkey situation in which a proper procedure would have been futile.
4. However, the tribunal had failed to determine whether a fair procedure, including a reasonable investigation, would have resulted in a fair dismissal, whether immediately or shortly afterwards. That question had to be expressed as a percentage chance and was remitted for reconsideration.
5. The appeal was allowed in part. Only the wrongful dismissal and Polkey issues were remitted. If a Polkey deduction was made, it had to be deducted first from the gross compensatory loss, after which the 75 per cent contribution reduction was applied to the net figure.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal in part. The wrongful dismissal and Polkey issues were remitted to the same Employment Tribunal, if practicable. The unfair dismissal liability finding was left undisturbed.
• London Central Employment Tribunal: Found wrongful and unfair dismissal, made a 75 per cent contribution finding, and awarded £3,767.44 compensation.