Dismissed for relationship breakdown: unfair but 100% contributory conduct wipes compensation
A tribunal found that National Westminster Bank Plc unfairly dismissed a D&A Analyst for relationship breakdown, but ruled that he would have been dismissed within a month anyway and that his own conduct contributed entirely to his dismissal, resulting in no compensation.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #relationship-breakdown
- #some-other-substantial-reason
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #bipolar-affective-disorder
- #outside-business-interests
- #threatening-behaviour
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a D&A Analyst from 8 March 2018 until dismissal on 28 October 2020.
- The claimant had a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder, accepted as a disability by the respondent.
- The claimant raised multiple grievances and had conflicts with several managers and colleagues.
- The claimant operated two external businesses, including one with sexually explicit content linked from his LinkedIn profile.
- The claimant was suspended on 21 February 2020 following allegations of misconduct and threatening behaviour.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for irretrievable breakdown in working relationships without prior warning or meeting.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a D&A Analyst at National Westminster Bank Plc.
-
Removed from Project Tungsten
Claimant stopped working on the InfoMap project after concerns about his skill set and disruptive behaviour.
-
First grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance (G1) against Aled Roberts and Paul Braddick, alleging bullying.
-
First occupational health report
Occupational Health report found claimant fit for work with no clinical concerns for depression.
-
Second occupational health report
Report confirmed diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder and recommended adjustments.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into conduct and attendance concerns.
-
Incident with guardian
Claimant behaved aggressively towards a guardian at the respondent's premises.
-
Without prejudice meeting
Meeting with Chris Bouwers where claimant made threatening comments; held privileged.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, without prior warning or meeting.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for 'some other substantial reason' (irretrievable breakdown in working relationships) and whether the dismissal amounted to direct disability discrimination or discrimination arising from disability.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because National Westminster Bank Plc did not follow a fair procedure – the claimant was dismissed without prior warning or a meeting to discuss the relationship breakdown. However, the tribunal also found that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within one month anyway due to his conduct, including threatening behaviour and failure to engage. A 100% Polkey reduction was applied, and a 100% reduction for contributory conduct was also applied, meaning the claimant received no compensation. The claims for direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if a dismissal is unfair due to procedural flaws, compensation can be wiped out if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway (Polkey reduction) or contributed to their own dismissal.
- Threatening behaviour and failure to engage with an employer during a suspension can be considered blameworthy conduct that justifies a 100% contributory fault reduction.
- An employer can dismiss for 'some other substantial reason' like relationship breakdown, but must still follow a fair procedure, including giving the employee an opportunity to respond.
- Disability discrimination claims require proof that the employer's actions were because of the disability or arose from it; a breakdown in relationships due to conduct may not be linked to disability even if the employee has a mental health condition.
A flawed process, but no compensation
This case illustrates how an unfair dismissal finding does not always lead to a payout. The D&A Analyst, who had two years' service with National Westminster Bank Plc, was dismissed for an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships. The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the bank did not give him a warning or hold a meeting before deciding to dismiss. But that was only part of the story.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's own conduct – including threatening behaviour, operating outside businesses with sexually explicit content linked from his LinkedIn profile, and failing to engage with the bank during his suspension – was blameworthy. It concluded that even if a fair procedure had been followed, the claimant would have been dismissed within one month anyway. This led to a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning no compensation for loss of earnings.
Contributory conduct and disability claims
In addition, the tribunal applied a 100% reduction for contributory conduct, finding that the claimant's actions caused or contributed to his dismissal. The result was that both the basic award and compensatory award were reduced to zero. The claimant also brought claims for direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, arguing that his bipolar affective disorder played a role. However, the tribunal dismissed these claims, finding that the bank's decision was based on the breakdown in relationships and the claimant's conduct, not on his disability.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that procedural unfairness alone does not guarantee compensation. Employees who have contributed to the breakdown of working relationships through their own behaviour may find their awards reduced or eliminated. It also highlights that employers can rely on 'some other substantial reason' – such as relationship breakdown – as a potentially fair reason for dismissal, but they must still follow a fair process. For employees with disabilities, the key is to show that the employer's actions were because of the disability or arose from it, which can be difficult if the conduct is seen as independent of the condition.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.