IT manager dismissed after cyber-attack: tribunal finds gross negligence dismissal fair
An IT manager with 14 months' service was fairly dismissed for gross negligence after a sophisticated cyber-attack. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim, finding the school's decision within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #cyber-attack
- #gross-negligence
- #expert-report
- #non-disclosure-of-report
- #range-of-reasonable-responses
- #repudiatory-breach
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as IT and Comms Manager from 14 March 2019 to 7 May 2020.
- A sophisticated cyber-attack occurred on 28 October 2019, escalating by 9 November 2019.
- The respondent engaged expert Ryan Rubin to investigate the root cause of the attack.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross negligence due to lack of effective antivirus, patches, monitoring, and backups.
- The claimant's claims of discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment were struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as IT and Comms Manager at Immanuel College.
-
Cyber-attack began
A sophisticated cyber-attack targeted the respondent's IT systems.
-
Cyber-attack escalated
The attack progressed to internet-facing servers, causing significant damage.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended pending investigation into serious allegations regarding his conduct.
-
Initial investigation meeting
The claimant attended an investigation meeting with Paul Abrahams.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 23 January 2020.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held; the claimant was accompanied by a trade union representative.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross negligence due to failings in antivirus, patching, monitoring, and backups.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard and subsequently dismissed.
-
Final hearing commenced
The tribunal heard the remaining claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross negligence was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether the school was entitled to dismiss without notice for repudiatory breach of contract.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the IT manager's claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. It held that the school had a genuine belief in his gross negligence based on a reasonable investigation and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant's other claims for discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment had been struck out earlier for non-compliance with tribunal orders.
- No compensation awarded as the dismissal was fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure that disciplinary investigations are thorough and that the decision to dismiss is based on reasonable grounds after a fair process.
- Employees in IT roles should be aware that failures in core security tasks like patching and backups can amount to gross negligence.
- Non-compliance with tribunal orders can lead to claims being struck out, even if the underlying issues are serious.
When a cyber-attack leads to dismissal
This case shows how a serious cyber-attack can lead to an IT manager's dismissal for gross negligence. The IT and Comms Manager had only 14 months' service when a sophisticated attack hit the school's systems. The school hired an expert to investigate, and the report highlighted significant failings: lack of effective antivirus, unpatched systems, poor monitoring, and inadequate backups. The school dismissed him after a disciplinary process, and the tribunal upheld that decision.
What the school did right
The school's investigation was key. It engaged an independent expert, held a disciplinary hearing with the claimant represented by a union rep, and considered his appeal. The tribunal noted that the school genuinely believed in his gross negligence based on the expert report and had carried out a reasonable investigation. Even though the claimant disputed some findings, the tribunal said the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for an employer.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that short service does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer has strong evidence of gross negligence. For employers, it shows the importance of a fair process and expert evidence when dealing with complex technical failures. The claimant's other discrimination and whistleblowing claims were struck out because he failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide details — a warning that tribunals expect parties to follow procedural rules.
Similar cases
Senior winemaker dismissed after £500,000 wine fault: a fair capability decision
A senior winemaker with nine years' service was fairly dismissed after a faulty vintage caused a £500,000 loss. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision, finding a reasonable investigation and genuine belief in gross negligence.
Janitor dismissed for unauthorised absences caught on CCTV: gross misconduct upheld
A janitor with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV and fob data showed he spent extended periods away from his post. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
General Manager's constructive dismissal claim fails but holiday pay awarded
A General Manager with 13 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal after a dispute over a promised reward for a business sale. The tribunal rejected his claim but awarded £326.41 in unpaid holiday pay.
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.