Managing director with bipolar disorder fairly dismissed for gross misconduct
A managing director with 25 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, including a sham payment, despite his bipolar disorder. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #bipolar-disorder
- #gross-misconduct
- #sham-transaction
- #shadow-directors-loan-account
- #disciplinary-process
- #long-service
Key facts
- The claimant was Managing Director of the respondent from April 1995 until dismissal on 17 August 2020.
- The claimant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in August 2019 and the respondent admitted he was disabled.
- The claimant sent abusive emails to colleagues in January and May 2020, which he attributed to his disability.
- The respondent suspended the claimant on 13 May 2020 and investigated allegations of misconduct.
- The disciplinary hearing found the claimant committed gross misconduct, including a sham £30,000 payment to a gym.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and the claimant was not owed any holiday pay.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent, eventually becoming Managing Director.
-
Bipolar diagnosis disclosed
The claimant emailed Mr Jones to say he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
-
Email exchange about accounts
Mr Haigh emailed about losses; Mr Jones replied; the claimant responded with abusive language.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant sent an email titled 'Me' stating he was leaving, but the resignation was not accepted.
-
Claimant emailed Mr Eville
The claimant forwarded an email exchange and made abusive comments about Mr Jones, demanding he be called off.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended pending investigation into four allegations.
-
Investigation report
Mr Parsons produced a report finding a case to answer on five allegations.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Saunders decided to dismiss the claimant summarily for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Kingsnorth heard the claimant's appeal and upheld the dismissal.
-
Tribunal hearing
The employment tribunal heard the case over six days.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was fair given the claimant's long service and disability, and whether the employer discriminated by treating him unfavourably for something arising from his disability.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unpaid holiday pay.
Key reasons:
- The employer genuinely believed the claimant committed gross misconduct, including a sham £30,000 payment to a gym.
- The investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable and procedurally fair.
- The abusive emails were not caused by the claimant's bipolar disorder; he was capable of controlling his behaviour.
- No reasonable adjustments were needed as the claimant did not identify any disadvantage.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the misconduct is serious and properly investigated.
- Employers should ensure disciplinary processes are thorough and fair, even for long-serving employees with disabilities.
- Employees with disabilities should not assume that all misconduct will be excused; the link between the disability and the behaviour must be clear.
- Tribunals will scrutinise whether an employer's actions were proportionate and based on reasonable grounds, not just the outcome.
A long-serving director's downfall
This case shows that even a managing director with 25 years' service and a recognised disability can be fairly dismissed if the misconduct is serious and the employer follows a proper process. The claimant, who had bipolar disorder, sent abusive emails to colleagues and arranged a sham £30,000 payment to a gym. The employer suspended him, investigated thoroughly, and held a disciplinary hearing before dismissing for gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
The tribunal noted that the employer's investigation was reasonable and the disciplinary decision was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant's disability did not cause the abusive emails; he was able to control his behaviour. The employer also considered whether the misconduct was linked to the disability and concluded it was not. This careful approach helped the employer defend the claims successfully.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that disability does not give carte blanche for misconduct. For employers, it shows that a fair process and a genuine belief in misconduct can justify dismissal, even for a long-serving employee. The tribunal emphasised that the key question is whether the employer acted reasonably, not whether the tribunal would have made the same decision.
Similar cases
32-year employee dismissed for unauthorised absence: employer's decision upheld
A warehouse operative with 32 years' service was fairly dismissed after failing to contact his employer for nearly a month. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
16-year service, one clear breach: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A senior customer advisor with 16 years' unblemished service was dismissed for gross misconduct after creating two accounts for one customer. The tribunal upheld the decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.
24-year manager dismissed for falsifying delivery records: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
An operations manager with 24 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after making unauthorised manual carded entries and giving incorrect explanations. The tribunal rejected both his unfair and wrongful dismissal claims.
Night shelf stacker dismissed for failing to scan items: Tesco's decision upheld
A Tesco employee with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to scan and pay for items on multiple occasions while using the Scan as You Shop service. The tribunal found Tesco's investigation and decision were reasonable.