Sales advisor unfairly dismissed for data breach after 11-month delay in process
A sales advisor was unfairly dismissed by Sky Retail Stores Limited for a data protection breach after an 11-month investigation and disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £807, reduced by 50% for contributory conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #data-protection-breach
- #gross-misconduct
- #unreasonable-delay
- #contributory-conduct
- #polkey-reduction
Key facts
- The claimant admitted sending a customer's details via his personal mobile to a colleague.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct for breaching its data protection policy.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to unreasonable delay in the investigation and disciplinary process.
- The claimant was paid during suspension and received all monies due on termination.
- The tribunal found the claimant contributed to his dismissal by his blameworthy conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a sales advisor at Sky Retail Stores Limited.
-
Data breach incident
Claimant, while at Heathrow airport for a funeral, sent a prospective customer's details via his personal mobile to a colleague.
-
First conduct meeting
Claimant received a final written warning for unauthorized phone calls to Ghana.
-
Second investigation started
Allegations of bullying and harassment made against claimant; investigation by Mr Davis began.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant suspended on full pay pending investigation.
-
Investigation concluded
Mr Davis found a case for disciplinary action including data protection breach.
-
First disciplinary meeting cancelled
Meeting did not proceed as claimant provided a fit note; occupational health referral made.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
Ms Halliday invited claimant to a disciplinary hearing after a five-month gap.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended with union rep; Ms Halliday upheld data protection breach allegation.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal dismissed
Ms Kerr upheld dismissal after appeal hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, focusing on whether the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation and whether the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The reason for dismissal was conduct (data protection breach), which was a potentially fair reason, but the process was flawed.
The key reason was the unreasonable delay: the investigation concluded in May 2020, but the disciplinary hearing did not take place until November 2020, with no explanation for the gap. This delay meant the respondent did not act reasonably.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £807
- Compensatory award: £0 (claimant suffered no financial loss as he was paid during suspension and received all monies due on termination)
- Polkey reduction: 0% (no finding that claimant would have been dismissed anyway)
- Contributory reduction: 50% (claimant's conduct in sending customer details contributed to dismissal)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure that disciplinary processes are concluded without unreasonable delay, even if the employee is suspended on full pay.
- A long gap between the end of an investigation and a disciplinary hearing can make a dismissal unfair, regardless of the seriousness of the misconduct.
- Admitting the conduct that led to dismissal can result in a significant reduction in compensation for contributory fault.
- Claimants who suffer no financial loss may still receive a basic award but no compensatory award if they were paid throughout the process.
This case shows how a lengthy disciplinary process can undermine an otherwise valid reason for dismissal. The sales advisor admitted sending a customer's details via his personal phone to a colleague while at a funeral. Sky Retail Stores Limited treated this as gross misconduct, but the tribunal found the process unfair due to an 11-month delay from the incident to dismissal.
What went wrong
The investigation concluded in May 2020, but the disciplinary hearing was not held until November 2020. The tribunal noted that the respondent offered no explanation for this five-month gap. While the claimant was on suspension with full pay, the delay was still unreasonable. The employer could have acted sooner, especially given that the claimant had already admitted the conduct.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that employers cannot let disciplinary processes drag on, even for serious misconduct. The tribunal applied the 'range of reasonable responses' test and found that no reasonable employer would have taken so long. The claimant received a basic award of £807, but no compensatory award because he suffered no financial loss. His compensation was further reduced by 50% because his own conduct contributed to the dismissal.
For employees, this case highlights that even if you admit a mistake, the employer must still follow a fair process. For employers, it is a reminder that delays in handling misconduct can lead to findings of unfair dismissal, even when the underlying reason is valid.
Similar cases
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: unfair dismissal for lack of disciplinary hearing
A night care assistant with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after being seen asleep on duty, because her employer did not hold a disciplinary hearing before sacking her. The tribunal awarded £962.79, reduced by 75% for her contributory conduct.
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.