Border Force officer dismissed for failing to disclose previous dismissal: employer's decision upheld
A former Border Force officer who failed to disclose a previous gross misconduct dismissal on his application was fairly dismissed. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the band of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #failure-to-disclose
- #previous-dismissal
- #employment-gap
- #misconduct-dismissal
- #band-of-reasonable-responses
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed from the Home Office in 2016 for gross misconduct.
- In 2019, the claimant applied for a role with Border Force without disclosing his previous dismissal or the resulting employment gap.
- The claimant's application form showed employment history in years, concealing the gap and dismissal.
- An anonymous tip in May 2020 led to an investigation into the claimant's failure to disclose.
- The disciplinary hearing found three of four charges proven, including dishonestly failing to disclose the dismissal and unemployment period.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct in November 2020, and the appeal upheld the decision.
Timeline
-
Previous dismissal
The claimant was dismissed from the Home Office for gross misconduct.
-
Started DWP employment
The claimant began working for the Department for Work and Pensions.
-
Applied to Border Force
The claimant applied for a role with Border Force, using years-only employment history and not disclosing his previous dismissal.
-
Re-joined Home Office
The claimant started working for Border Force in January 2020.
-
Investigation commissioned
An anonymous tip led to a disciplinary investigation into the claimant's failure to disclose his previous dismissal and medical condition.
-
Investigator appointed
Mr Finch was appointed to investigate the allegations.
-
Claimant interviewed
Mr Finch interviewed the claimant, who admitted to being dismissed but claimed he disclosed it in the interview.
-
Investigation report
Mr Finch concluded there was a case to answer regarding failure to disclose dismissal and medical condition.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Mr Slevin held a disciplinary hearing; the claimant did not provide evidence to support his explanations.
-
Disciplinary reconvened
The hearing resumed; Mr Slevin found three charges proven and dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal confirmed
The claimant received a letter confirming dismissal for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal dismissed
Ms Hickman upheld the dismissal decision on appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct (failure to disclose previous dismissal and employment gap) and whether he was disabled and subjected to direct disability discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
- The claimant was dismissed in 2016 from the Home Office for gross misconduct. In 2019, he applied for a Border Force role without disclosing that dismissal or the resulting employment gap, using years-only employment history.
- An anonymous tip led to an investigation. The disciplinary hearing found three of four charges proven, including dishonestly failing to disclose the dismissal and unemployment period. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct in November 2020.
- The tribunal found that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation. The decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses.
- The tribunal also found that the claimant did not have a disability under the Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always disclose previous dismissals and employment gaps honestly on application forms; failure to do so can be treated as gross misconduct.
- Employers are entitled to rely on anonymous tips to investigate potential misconduct, provided they conduct a reasonable investigation.
- The band of reasonable responses gives employers latitude in disciplinary decisions; tribunals will not substitute their own judgment if the employer's decision was reasonable.
- Claiming disability discrimination requires evidence of a physical or mental impairment with substantial and long-term adverse effects on day-to-day activities.
A case about honesty in job applications
This case shows the serious consequences of failing to disclose a previous dismissal when applying for a new role. The claimant, a former Border Force officer, had been dismissed from the Home Office in 2016 for gross misconduct. When he applied for a Border Force position in 2019, he did not mention that dismissal or the resulting gap in his employment, instead listing his employment history in years only.
An anonymous tip in May 2020 triggered an investigation. The employer appointed an investigator who interviewed the claimant and reviewed his application. The claimant admitted he had been dismissed but claimed he had disclosed it during the interview process—a claim the tribunal did not accept. The disciplinary hearing found him guilty of dishonestly failing to disclose the dismissal and the unemployment period, leading to his dismissal for gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
The tribunal found that the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on reasonable grounds following a thorough investigation. The investigator gathered evidence, interviewed the claimant, and produced a report. The disciplinary hearing was conducted fairly, and the appeal process was properly carried out. The decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses—meaning another reasonable employer could have made the same decision.
Why this result matters
This case reinforces that employers can expect honesty from applicants about their employment history, especially when the role involves security and trust. It also highlights that the band of reasonable responses gives employers significant discretion in disciplinary matters. For employees, the lesson is clear: failing to disclose a previous dismissal can be treated as gross misconduct, even if the original dismissal was years earlier. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's disability discrimination claim, finding he did not have a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Similar cases
Teaching assistant dismissed for using prohibited restraint technique: tribunal upholds decision
A teaching assistant who pulled a young person's hood and took them to the floor in a ground hold was fairly dismissed for misconduct, the tribunal has ruled. The claim for race discrimination also failed.
Assistant manager dismissed for using physical force on customers: tribunal upholds John Lewis decision
An assistant team manager with eight years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV showed him pushing, grabbing and kicking members of the public. The tribunal rejected his claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with unless order
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Firstport Property Services Ltd was struck out after they failed to provide disclosure despite an unless order. The tribunal also ordered them to pay £500 in costs.
Investment director made redundant after team closure: tribunal upholds fair process
A commercial development director was fairly dismissed when his team was disbanded, despite a misleading statement by a managing director. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation and a fair consultation process.