Dismissed for fuel card misuse: a flawed process that still fell short of unfair dismissal
A former personal assistant was dismissed for gross misconduct over fuel card use, but the tribunal found the process unfair. However, due to a break in service she lacked two years' continuous employment, so her unfair dismissal claim failed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #wrongful-dismissal
- #unlawful-deduction
- #race-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
- #marital-status-discrimination
- #holiday-pay
Key facts
- The claimant and respondent owner were in a close personal relationship from 2015 to October 2020.
- The claimant was paid £1,000 per month gross from May 2020 but did no regular work.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for alleged misuse of a fuel card without a fair process.
- The claimant was not paid for October 2020 and received no notice pay.
- The claimant lacked two years' continuous employment due to an unpaid period in 2019.
- The claimant took at least 25 working days of holiday in 2020.
Timeline
-
Claimant started working for respondent
Claimant began working for respondent, initially paid £1,000 per month cash as self-employed.
-
Surrey CC red badge issued
Claimant obtained a Surrey CC red badge, required for passenger assistant work, confirming her employment.
-
Unpaid period began
From March to December 2019, claimant agreed wages were used for flat refurbishment, so she was not paid.
-
PAYE payments resumed
Claimant was put on PAYE and paid £1,000 per month gross from May 2020.
-
Last wage payment
Claimant received £975.04 net for September 2020; no further payments.
-
WhatsApp message about continued pay
Mr Harvey sent a message saying he would continue to pay claimant 'for the time being'.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Mr Harvey sent a letter dismissing claimant for gross misconduct (fuel card misuse). Claimant denies receiving it.
-
Claimant attended office
Claimant spoke to Mr Dubery, who told her to leave and work for her ex-husband.
-
Claimant wrote to respondent
Claimant requested unpaid wages and payslips; respondent did not reply.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant began ACAS early conciliation process.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed, discriminated against on grounds of race and marital status, and owed unpaid wages, notice pay, and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims except for unlawful deduction of wages and wrongful dismissal.
- The claimant did not have two years' continuous employment because of an unpaid period in 2019, so she could not claim unfair dismissal.
- The dismissal for alleged fuel card misuse was procedurally flawed, but the claimant's discrimination and holiday pay claims failed due to lack of evidence.
- Compensation awarded:
- Unlawful deduction: £975.04 net (unpaid wages for October 2020)
- Wrongful dismissal (notice pay): £250 gross
- Total: £1,225.04
Lessons & takeaways
- Continuous service is crucial: a break in employment can reset the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims.
- Even if a dismissal is procedurally unfair, without the required length of service, an unfair dismissal claim cannot succeed.
- Keep clear records of all payments and working arrangements, especially if there are periods of unpaid work.
- If you are dismissed for alleged misconduct, ensure you receive a fair process including the right to respond to allegations.
- Discrimination claims require specific evidence of less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic – general comments are not enough.
This case shows how a flawed dismissal process does not automatically lead to a successful unfair dismissal claim if the employee lacks the necessary length of service. The claimant, a former personal assistant and chauffeur assistant, was dismissed for alleged misuse of a fuel card. The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair – she was not given a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations. However, because she had a break in employment in 2019 when she was not paid, she did not have the two years' continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
What went wrong for the employer
The respondent, HCL Chauffeurs UK Ltd, dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct without following a fair process. The tribunal noted that the owner sent a dismissal letter but the claimant said she never received it, and there was no evidence of a proper investigation or opportunity for her to explain. This kind of procedural failure often leads to a finding of unfair dismissal – but only if the employee has the qualifying service.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that the two-year continuous employment rule is a strict barrier. Even if an employer acts unfairly, an employee with less than two years' service cannot claim unfair dismissal. However, other claims – such as unlawful deduction of wages and wrongful dismissal – do not require two years' service. Here, the claimant succeeded on those claims, recovering unpaid wages and notice pay. The discrimination claims failed because she did not provide sufficient evidence that her treatment was because of her race or marital status.
Similar cases
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Dismissed for asserting minimum wage rights: automatic unfair dismissal claim succeeds
A former employee who was dismissed shortly after raising concerns about not being paid the national minimum wage has won over £17,000 in compensation for automatic unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and unlawful deductions.
Whistleblowing finance director awarded £125,000 after dismissal for raising health concerns
A part-time finance director who raised concerns about a colleague's mental health and corporate governance was automatically unfairly dismissed and subjected to age discrimination. The tribunal awarded her £125,604.98.
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.