Computers In The City Ltd v Martin

In a wrongful-dismissal appeal, the employer must establish on the balance of probabilities that summary dismissal was contractually justified. Conduct involving the use of an employer’s computer during working hours for another business may be relevant to the implied term of trust and confidence. Dishonesty when questioned about that conduct or the outside business may also have potential legal significance. An employment tribunal must address each material part of the employer’s case and make sufficiently complete findings. Where material findings are incomplete, the appellate tribunal should ordinarily remit rather than substitute its own factual conclusion, preferably to the same tribunal where practicable.

Mr Martin was summarily dismissed by Computers In The City Ltd after the employer discovered material on his work computer connected with work for another business, PI Global Partners Ltd. The employer relied on misuse of confidential information, dishonesty, work for PI Global during office hours and breach of trust and confidence.

The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Martin had undertaken some PI Global activity during the employer’s working hours, but concluded that the conduct justified no more than a warning. It did not adequately determine whether he had been dishonest when questioned about his connection with PI Global or his use of the work computer. The employer appealed, principally on that omission.

1. Appeal and remittal. The appeal succeeded to the extent that the case was remitted for further consideration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal declined to substitute a finding that Mr Martin had been dishonest because the Employment Tribunal had not expressly made that finding and its conclusions were incomplete.
2. Materiality of dishonesty. The Employment Tribunal had concentrated on whether Mr Martin was permitted to work for PI Global. It failed to address the distinct allegation that he had used the work computer during working hours for PI Global purposes and had been dishonest when questioned about his connection with that business and his computer use. That evidence formed part of the employer’s case and required determination.
3. Further factual issues. The Employment Tribunal was required to clarify whether Mr Martin denied working for PI Global, whether he denied using the computer for PI Global during company time, whether any such denials were dishonest, and what was meant by its finding that he had played down his involvement.
4. Burden and other grounds. Where an employee has been summarily dismissed, the employer bears the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that summary dismissal was justified. The Employment Tribunal was not bound to accept the director’s unsupported evidence that PI Global was illegitimate or under investigation. The remaining grounds of appeal were rejected.
5. The matter was remitted to the same Employment Judge if available, applying the guidance in Sinclair Roche & Temperley v Heard. A preliminary case management discussion was suggested to address further evidence and whether Mr Martin wished to pursue the claim.

• Employment Tribunal, Central London: On 19 July 2010, held that the summary dismissal was in breach of contract and awarded one month’s net pay in lieu of notice.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Remitted the matter for further consideration, preferably to the same Employment Judge. Other, less significant grounds of appeal were rejected.