Dismissed for failing to disclose bail conditions: loss of trust upheld
A sales colleague who hid bail conditions for serious sexual offences for over two years was fairly dismissed by Currys Group Limited for loss of trust and confidence. The tribunal dismissed his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #bail-conditions
- #non-disclosure
- #reputational-risk
- #risk-to-staff-and-customers
- #alternative-employment-offered
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a sales colleague from 9 September 2016 to 6 June 2022.
- In June 2019 the claimant was arrested for serious sexual offences and released on bail with a condition not to have unsupervised contact with under-18s.
- The claimant did not inform his employer of the bail conditions until October 2021, when he was charged.
- The respondent suspended the claimant on full pay and investigated, concluding that trust and confidence had broken down.
- The respondent offered the claimant an alternative role in a Newark warehouse, which he declined due to travel distance.
- The claimant was dismissed on 6 June 2022 for some other substantial reason (loss of trust and confidence).
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a sales colleague at the Birstall store.
-
Arrest and bail conditions imposed
The claimant was arrested for two serious sexual offences, including rape, and released on bail with a condition not to have unsupervised access to persons under 18.
-
Claimant disclosed charges to manager
The claimant told Saad Ahmed about the charges and bail conditions. He initially gave the wrong arrest date (2020 instead of 2019) and said he had not told any colleague.
-
Suspension
Raymond Baldwin suspended the claimant on full pay pending investigation.
-
First suspension review meeting
The claimant confirmed bail conditions remained. He suggested he could try to have the no-contact condition removed but did not mention it was limited to domestic settings.
-
Second suspension review meeting
The claimant said he had told a colleague (Sid) about his bail conditions, contradicting his earlier statement. Sid later denied this.
-
Dismissal meeting
Mr Baldwin outlined concerns: non-disclosure, impact of bail conditions, risks to staff/customers, and reputational risk. The claimant was offered a warehouse role in Newark.
-
Dismissal
The claimant declined the Newark role due to travel distance. He was dismissed for some other substantial reason (loss of trust and confidence).
-
Appeal outcome
The internal appeal upheld the dismissal decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Currys had a potentially fair reason for dismissal (some other substantial reason) and whether it acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for loss of trust and confidence.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that Currys had a substantial reason for dismissal and acted reasonably.
Key reasons:
- The employee failed to disclose bail conditions for over two years, which directly affected his ability to work unsupervised with under-18s.
- Currys investigated thoroughly, offered an alternative role (which was declined), and followed a fair process.
- The tribunal rejected the argument that this was a conduct dismissal disguised as SOSR.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees must disclose any bail conditions or restrictions that affect their ability to perform their role, especially where they involve contact with vulnerable groups.
- Employers can fairly dismiss for loss of trust and confidence if an employee's non-disclosure undermines the employment relationship, provided they follow a fair process.
- Offering a suitable alternative role can strengthen an employer's case for fairness, even if the employee declines it.
- A two-year delay in disclosure is likely to be seen as a serious breach of trust, particularly if the conditions directly impact job duties.
When non-disclosure breaks trust
This case shows how a failure to disclose bail conditions can destroy the trust that is essential to the employment relationship. The sales colleague had been arrested for serious sexual offences and was released on bail with a condition not to have unsupervised contact with under-18s. He did not tell his employer for over two years, only revealing the charges when he was formally charged. By that point, the employer had lost confidence that he could be trusted to be open and honest.
Currys investigated the matter thoroughly, suspending the colleague on full pay and holding review meetings. They considered the risks to staff and customers, as well as the potential reputational damage. Crucially, they offered him an alternative role in a warehouse that did not involve customer contact, but he declined due to the travel distance. The tribunal noted that the employer had acted reasonably in considering alternatives before deciding to dismiss.
What the employer did right
The tribunal highlighted that Currys followed a fair process: they suspended the colleague, investigated, gave him opportunities to explain, and considered alternatives. The decision to dismiss was based on a genuine loss of trust and confidence, not as a cover for a conduct dismissal. The employer's offer of a suitable alternative role was a key factor in showing that dismissal was a last resort.
What this means for similar cases
For employees, this case is a reminder that non-disclosure of significant restrictions — especially those affecting interactions with vulnerable groups — can be fatal to the employment relationship. For employers, it shows that a fair process, including offering alternative work, can justify a dismissal for some other substantial reason even when the employee has not been convicted of any offence. The key is to focus on the impact on trust and the ability to perform the role, rather than on the underlying allegations themselves.
Similar cases
Wasted costs application against NHS Trust solicitors dismissed after settlement agreement
A junior doctor's attempt to obtain a wasted costs order against the solicitors for an NHS Trust was dismissed because a 2018 settlement agreement precluded the application and there was no improper conduct.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
12-year council employee dismissed for non-disclosure and false information: tribunal rejects whistleblowing claim
A project coordinator with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for failing to declare property ownership on a housing application and providing false information about his brother. The tribunal also dismissed his whistleblowing claim and ordered him to pay £5,000 in costs.
Tweets about Islam led to dismissal but tribunal rejects philosophical belief claim
A senior business development manager dismissed after colleagues discovered her tweets about Islam and hijabs lost her discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. The tribunal ruled her views were not protected philosophical beliefs.