Expense claim misrepresentation led to fair dismissal for financial services analyst
A senior analyst with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed after submitting an expense claim that included his partner's meals and then denying it during investigation. The tribunal upheld Citibank's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #expense-claim
- #misrepresentation
- #gross-misconduct
- #financial-services
- #investigation
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant submitted an expense claim for meals that included items consumed by his partner, which was not reimbursable under the respondent's policy.
- When questioned by expense approvers and an investigator, the claimant repeatedly stated that all food and drink was consumed by him alone.
- The claimant admitted on 22 August 2022 that some items were for his partner, after the investigation meeting.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant summarily for gross misconduct based on the expense claim and misrepresentation.
- The claimant had 7 years of service with no previous disciplinary issues and was on medical leave during some of the relevant communications.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the respondent.
-
Business trip to Amsterdam
The claimant travelled to Amsterdam on a business trip, accompanied by his partner.
-
Return from Amsterdam
The claimant returned from the business trip.
-
Medical leave began
The claimant started a 6-week period of medical leave.
-
Expense claim submitted
The claimant submitted an expense claim for meals during the trip.
-
Expense approver raised concerns
Mr Gigante questioned the claim, noting receipts appeared for two people. The claimant maintained all food was for him.
-
Ethics Office notified
Mr Gigante raised concerns with the Ethics Office, leading to an investigation.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant was interviewed by investigator Ms Lelo. He initially denied sharing meals with his partner.
-
Claimant admitted partner's meals
The claimant emailed Ms Lelo admitting that some items were consumed by his partner.
-
Investigation report issued
Ms Lelo issued her report finding breaches of policy and potential gross misconduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary committee, chaired by Mr Smith, heard the claimant's case.
-
Dismissal confirmed
The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Flowerday heard the claimant's appeal.
-
Appeal dismissed
The appeal was rejected, upholding the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct (submitting an inaccurate expense claim and misrepresenting facts during investigation) was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and whether it amounted to wrongful dismissal (breach of contract for unpaid notice).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. It found that Citibank had a genuine belief in the claimant's gross misconduct based on a reasonable investigation. The claimant had submitted an expense claim for meals that included items consumed by his partner, which breached policy, and then repeatedly denied this when questioned. Although the claimant later admitted the truth, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Honesty during an investigation is critical – even if the initial mistake is minor, misrepresentation can turn a policy breach into gross misconduct.
- Employers can rely on a reasonable investigation even if the employee later admits the truth – the key is the employer's genuine belief at the time of dismissal.
- Length of service and clean disciplinary record do not automatically protect against dismissal for misconduct involving dishonesty, especially in regulated sectors like financial services.
- Expense claims must strictly follow policy – including meals for a partner, even if unintentional, can lead to dismissal if the employee is not truthful when challenged.
This case shows how a relatively small expense claim mistake can escalate into a dismissal when the employee fails to be truthful during the investigation. The claimant, a senior analyst at Citibank, submitted a claim for meals on a business trip that included items consumed by his partner. When questioned by expense approvers and an investigator, he repeatedly stated that all food and drink was for him alone. It was only after the investigation meeting that he admitted the truth.
What the employer did right
Citibank followed its disciplinary policy: it carried out an investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and considered an appeal. The tribunal noted that the investigation was reasonable and that the decision-maker genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct by breaching the expense policy and the code of conduct on honesty. The claimant's 7 years of service and clean record were considered but did not outweigh the seriousness of the dishonesty.
What the claimant could have done differently
If the claimant had been upfront from the start – explaining that his partner had joined him and that he mistakenly included her meals – the outcome might have been different. Instead, his repeated denials during the investigation undermined his credibility and gave the employer a strong basis for dismissal. The tribunal also noted that the claimant was on medical leave during some communications, but this did not excuse his initial dishonesty.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that in financial services and other regulated sectors, honesty is paramount. Even a first-time offence involving dishonesty can justify summary dismissal. For employees, the lesson is clear: if you make a mistake, admit it early. For employers, the case confirms that a fair process and a reasonable investigation will protect a dismissal decision, provided the employer genuinely believes in the misconduct.
Similar cases
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Medical secretary dismissed for racist comments: NHS trust's decision upheld
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a medical secretary who made racist comments about a colleague's appointment, finding the NHS trust acted reasonably.
Emergency medical technician dismissed for using racist language: 15 years' service didn't save her job
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an EMT with 15 years' service who used the n-word about a black colleague on two occasions, finding the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Project manager dismissed for planting listening device: tribunal upholds dismissal
A project manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed after a listening device was found in his boss's office, with wires leading to his desk. The Liverpool tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.