Legal executive unfairly dismissed after flawed disciplinary process
A legal executive was unfairly dismissed by ODT Professional Services Limited after a disciplinary process that the tribunal found fundamentally unfair. She was awarded £2,621.57 after reductions for contributory fault and the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a legal executive from 1 April 2015 until summary dismissal on 18 April 2019.
- The claimant and Mr Buckland had a difficult working relationship, with mutual complaints and tensions over administrative support.
- An external HR consultant, Ms Cutler, produced a report that was heavily edited by the respondent and formed the basis of disciplinary charges.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary process that the tribunal found fundamentally unfair in relation to charges 1-4.
- The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed but applied a 70% Polkey reduction and 25% contributory fault deduction.
- The sex discrimination claims were dismissed as not well-founded.
Timeline
-
Review meeting
The claimant had a review meeting with Mr Osler and Mr Morgan; her billing target was increased by about 30%.
-
Branch meeting
The claimant was told that Mr Buckland would join the Hurstpierpoint office.
-
Birch Hotel agreement
A 'clear the air' meeting was held; it was agreed that the claimant would report to Mr Buckland and that Ms Williams' work would be channelled through the claimant.
-
Meetings with Ms Cutler
The claimant and Mr Buckland met individually with external HR consultant Ms Cutler.
-
Cutler report sent to claimant
The final version of the Cutler report was sent to the claimant, raising serious concerns about her conduct.
-
Claimant signed off sick
The claimant's GP certified her unfit for work due to depression and anxiety caused by stress at work.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 20 December 2018 on charges including bullying and victimisation.
-
First disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence; findings were made on some charges.
-
Resumed disciplinary hearing
The resumed disciplinary hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence.
-
Summary dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct; all charges were found proven.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, whether the employee was wrongfully dismissed, and whether she had been discriminated against on grounds of sex.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The disciplinary process was fundamentally unfair: the employer relied on a report from an external HR consultant that had been heavily edited by the respondent, and proceeded with disciplinary hearings while the claimant was signed off sick with work-related stress. The tribunal also found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed because the employer did not follow the contractual disciplinary procedure.
However, the tribunal applied a 70% Polkey reduction, finding there was a 70% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed even with a fair process. It also found the claimant contributed to her dismissal by her own blameworthy conduct, reducing the basic award by 25% and the compensatory award by 50%.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,363.50 (reduced by 25% to £1,772.63)
- Compensatory award: £258.07 (reduced by 50% to £129.04)
- Total: £2,621.57
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are signed off sick with work-related stress, your employer should consider postponing disciplinary hearings until you are fit to attend.
- An employer should not rely on a report that has been heavily edited by management without giving the employee a chance to see the original version.
- Even if a dismissal is found unfair, the tribunal may reduce compensation if it thinks you would have been dismissed anyway (Polkey reduction) or if you contributed to your own dismissal.
- Sex discrimination claims can be difficult to prove; here the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated differently because of her sex.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how an employer's failure to follow a fair process can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, even when the employee's conduct was not blameless. The claimant, a legal executive with nearly four years' service, was dismissed after a disciplinary process that the tribunal described as 'fundamentally unfair'. The employer, ODT Professional Services Limited, relied on a report from an external HR consultant that had been heavily edited by management. The claimant was not given the original version, which meant she could not properly challenge the allegations against her.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that the employer should not have proceeded with disciplinary hearings while the claimant was signed off sick with work-related stress and depression. The claimant had asked for the hearings to be postponed until she was fit to attend, but the employer went ahead in her absence. This meant she could not put her side of the story. The tribunal also criticised the employer for relying on a 'stale' report that was several months old and for not considering updated medical evidence.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that even if an employee's conduct is poor, the employer must still follow a fair procedure. The tribunal applied a 70% Polkey reduction, meaning it thought there was a 70% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed even with a fair process. It also reduced compensation by 25% and 50% for contributory fault. So the claimant received only a fraction of what she might have got if the process had been fair and she had no blame. The sex discrimination claims were dismissed, showing that not every unfair treatment is linked to a protected characteristic.
Similar cases
Faculty manager with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy selection tainted by disability bias
A tribunal found that Canterbury Christ Church University unfairly dismissed a faculty manager and discriminated against her because of her disability when it decided she was not appointable to a new role due to her ill health. She was awarded £32,684.
Dismissed during long-term sick leave: a capability decision that went too fast
A behaviour lead with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied on outdated medical reports and failed to follow its own sickness procedure. The tribunal awarded £23,222, including £9,000 for injury to feelings.
Dismissed while on long-term sick leave: a capability process that fell short
An employment tribunal has ruled that a hire controller with degenerative disc disease was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of her disability. The respondent, Torrent Trackside Ltd, dismissed her without warning after 10 months' absence.
Security officer dismissed for leaving post: tribunal finds investigation fell short
A security officer with nearly five years' service was unfairly dismissed after leaving his post for a break and prayers. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate, failing to obtain CCTV or witness statements.