Driving examiner unfairly dismissed for photographing manager's notebook: reinstatement ordered
A driving examiner with 10 years' service was unfairly dismissed for taking a photo of his manager's notebook. The tribunal ordered reinstatement with a £113,585 payment, but reduced the award by 33% for his own fault.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #data-breach
- #photographing-notebook
- #satnav-boxes
- #contributory-fault
- #inconsistent-treatment
- #reinstatement
Key facts
- The claimant was a driving examiner employed from January 2008 until dismissal in November 2018.
- He was dismissed for allegedly breaching data protection by photographing and printing a page from his manager's notebook.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair, as the decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
- The claimant's race discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed.
- A 33% deduction for contributory fault was applied to both basic and compensatory awards.
- The tribunal ordered reinstatement with a gross payment of £113,585.84.
Timeline
-
Ms Lal contacts HR about manager's notebook
Ms Lal reported a potential breach of confidentiality by the line manager Jan, who had left a notebook open on her desk containing confidential information.
-
Meeting with Mr Perkins
Ms Lal met with Mr Perkins; the claimant was not allowed to attend. Ms Lal told Mr Perkins that both she and the claimant had photographs of the notebook.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended pending investigation into alleged misconduct regarding sensitive data.
-
First investigation report
Investigator Paul Day produced an initial report on the claimant's alleged misconduct.
-
Supplementary investigation report
A supplementary report was produced covering both the claimant and Ms Lal.
-
Invitation to disciplinary meeting
The claimant was invited to a formal disciplinary meeting regarding the allegations.
-
Disciplinary meeting
The claimant attended a disciplinary meeting with decision-maker Roland Williams, accompanied by a union representative.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, including breach of data protection and dishonesty.
-
Liability hearing begins
The employment tribunal heard the case over four days, finding the dismissal unfair.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal heard evidence on remedy and ordered reinstatement with a monetary award.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the driving examiner was unfairly dismissed for misconduct (data breach and dishonesty) and whether his dismissal was motivated by race discrimination or victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The decision-maker failed to properly consider the claimant's explanation and treated him inconsistently compared to a colleague involved in the same incident. The race discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed.
Compensation breakdown:
- The tribunal ordered reinstatement with a gross payment of £113,585.84.
- A 33% deduction for contributory fault was applied to both basic and compensatory awards.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must treat employees consistently when they are involved in the same misconduct; different outcomes for similar conduct can make a dismissal unfair.
- A fair investigation should include giving the employee a chance to respond to all evidence before a decision is made.
- Contributory fault can significantly reduce compensation if the employee's own actions contributed to the dismissal.
- Reinstatement is a possible remedy for unfair dismissal, but it is rarely ordered and usually only where the working relationship can be restored.
What this case shows in practice
A driving examiner with a decade of service was dismissed for taking a photograph of his manager's notebook, which contained confidential information. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the employer failed to follow a fair process and treated the claimant differently from a colleague who had done the same thing. The colleague, Ms Lal, was not dismissed. This inconsistency was a key factor in the tribunal's decision.
The case highlights how important it is for employers to apply disciplinary rules consistently. When two employees are involved in the same incident, different outcomes can suggest that the decision was not based on a proper assessment of the facts.
What the losing side could have done differently
The Department of Transport could have avoided this outcome by conducting a more thorough investigation. The decision-maker did not properly consider the claimant's explanation that he took the photo to protect himself after raising concerns about the manager's conduct. The tribunal also noted that the employer did not give the claimant a fair opportunity to respond to all the evidence before deciding to dismiss.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that even in cases involving data breaches, employers must follow a fair process. The tribunal ordered reinstatement, which is an unusual remedy, but it shows that where the employee's conduct is not fundamentally incompatible with continued employment, a tribunal may be willing to restore the working relationship. However, the 33% reduction for contributory fault also shows that employees who contribute to their own dismissal can expect their compensation to be cut significantly.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
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.
Headteacher dismissed for tapping her son's hand: unfair dismissal win after 17 years' service
A headteacher with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after tapping her 3-year-old son's hand to get his attention. The tribunal awarded £102,328.80, reduced by 20% for contributory fault.
Managing director with 31 years' service dismissed without process: unfair and wrongful dismissal
A managing director with 31 years' service was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after being told his employment was ending at a hotel meeting, with no prior investigation or disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £61,625.82.