Jandu v Crane Legal Ltd

An Employment Tribunal may uphold a misconduct dismissal where the employer held a genuine belief, founded on reasonable grounds after an adequate investigation, and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It need not address every item of extensive evidence if its reasons are intelligible and adequately explain its conclusion.

Under Employment Rights Act 1996, a bonus claim involving difficult discretionary quantification is not a straightforward unlawful-deduction claim merely because the amount is disputed. If any entitlement exists, it must be pursued as a contractual claim.

A solicitor appealed the dismissal of his claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract. He had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after seeking a substantial contractual bonus based on profit costs which the employer considered unjustified.

The Employment Tribunal held that the employer had reasonably believed the misconduct allegations after a thorough investigation and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. It also rejected the bonus claim. The appeal challenged the reasonable grounds for dismissal, the fairness of the disciplinary process, reliance on later-discovered matters, construction of the bonus clause, and the Tribunal's wages jurisdiction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer had a genuine belief in gross misconduct, based on reasonable grounds following an adequate and thorough investigation. The central disputes were substantially matters of credibility. The Tribunal's assessment that the employee's explanations were evasive and unconvincing supported the conclusion that the employer's rejection of them fell within the range of reasonable responses.

2. The Tribunal's reasons were intelligible and adequate. It had identified the allegations, the material conflicts in evidence, the investigation and its credibility findings. It was not required to deal separately with every item in a large body of evidence.

3. The employer did not rely on subsequently discovered conduct when dismissing the employee. Such matters were therefore irrelevant to the primary unfair-dismissal defence. They would only have arisen on the principles in W Devis & Sons v Atkins if that defence had failed.

4. Having regard to the size and administrative resources of the firm, it was reasonable for its sole operational principal to conduct the disciplinary hearing. The employee was also offered a rehearing appeal before a director with no prior day-to-day involvement.

5. On the proper construction of the bonus contract, qualifying profit costs had to be generated during the 2011 calendar year. The Tribunal was also entitled to accept the evidence which showed that qualifying costs did not reach the contractual threshold. No bonus was due.

6. The bonus allegation was, in any event, unsuitable for a wages-deduction claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Any loss was difficult to quantify and involved discretion and judgment. Had there been a valid entitlement, it would have required a breach-of-contract claim.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed: [2014] UKEAT 0198_13_1104.
• Employment Tribunal, London (Central): claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract dismissed. Judgment sent to the parties on 23 November 2012.