Dismissed over defamation claim he didn't make: a foregone conclusion
A maintenance technician was unfairly dismissed after being accused of defaming his employer. The tribunal found the investigation was minimal, the outcome predetermined, and the appeal conducted by the managing director's brother-in-law. He was awarded £10,896.94.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #defamation
- #inadequate-investigation
- #predetermined-outcome
- #acas-code-uplift
- #failure-to-provide-section-1-statement
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a maintenance technician from 1 October 2018 to 18 November 2021.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct based on an allegation that he made defamatory comments about the company and its managing director.
- The tribunal found that the claimant did not make the alleged comments.
- The investigation was minimal and conducted by a friend of the managing director.
- The disciplinary hearing was conducted by the managing director, who had predetermined the outcome and prepared the dismissal letter in advance.
- The appeal was conducted by the managing director's brother-in-law, who failed to consider the grounds of appeal impartially.
Timeline
-
Alleged comments made
The claimant was working with David Hammett, who later alleged the claimant made defamatory comments about the company and its managing director.
-
Hammett discusses allegations with McAlindon
David Hammett told managing director Nathan McAlindon about the alleged comments.
-
Investigation conversation
Matthew Ballard spoke to the claimant, asking if he had spoken to anyone about the company. The claimant denied making any comments. Ballard did not inform the claimant he was under investigation.
-
Investigation report
Ballard reported to McAlindon, recommending the matter proceed to a disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The claimant received a letter inviting him to a disciplinary hearing on 18 November, enclosing Hammett's statement but not indicating possible dismissal.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
The claimant attended the hearing, denied the allegations, and was dismissed for gross misconduct. The dismissal letter was prepared in advance.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed the dismissal, raising concerns about bias and lack of evidence.
-
Appeal hearing
Paul MacAllister, the managing director's brother-in-law, conducted the appeal and upheld the dismissal without properly considering the grounds.
-
Request for employment particulars
The claimant requested his terms and conditions; the respondent replied it did not hold a signed copy.
-
Claimant starts self-employment
The claimant began working as a self-employed person, earning income from ENM Civils Ltd.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and whether the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer's investigation was minimal and conducted by a friend of the managing director. The disciplinary hearing was chaired by the managing director, who had prepared the dismissal letter in advance. The appeal was heard by the managing director's brother-in-law, who failed to consider the grounds impartially.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £1,096.14
- Compensatory award: £6,949.76
- ACAS uplift (20%): £1,389.52
- Failure to provide s.1 statement: £1,461.52
- Total: £10,896.94
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure the investigation is thorough and conducted by someone independent of the allegations.
- Avoid having the same person who decides to dismiss also conduct the investigation or chair the disciplinary hearing.
- Appeal hearings must be genuinely impartial; using a relative of the decision-maker undermines fairness.
- Prepare dismissal letters only after the hearing, not in advance, to avoid the appearance of a predetermined outcome.
- Provide employees with a written statement of employment particulars within two months of starting work.
A dismissal that was always going to happen
A maintenance technician with three years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after a colleague alleged he made defamatory comments about the company and its managing director. The problem? The tribunal found he never made those comments. But even if he had, the way the employer handled the case made a fair outcome impossible.
The investigation was minimal. It consisted of a single conversation where the technician was not even told he was under investigation. The investigator was a friend of the managing director. The disciplinary hearing was conducted by the managing director himself, who had already prepared the dismissal letter before the hearing took place. The appeal was heard by the managing director's brother-in-law, who failed to properly consider the grounds of appeal.
What the employer could have done differently
A fair process would have started with a proper investigation. The employer should have spoken to witnesses, gathered evidence, and given the technician a chance to respond to the allegations fully. The disciplinary hearing should have been conducted by someone not involved in the allegations, and the decision should have been made after the hearing, not before. The appeal should have been handled by someone genuinely independent.
Why this case matters
This case is a reminder that even when an employer believes misconduct has occurred, the process must be fair. The tribunal found that the employer did not have reasonable grounds for its belief because the investigation was so poor. The predetermined outcome and biased appeal process made the dismissal automatically unfair. The ACAS uplift of 20% was applied because the employer unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice. The additional award for failing to provide a written statement of employment particulars highlights a basic legal obligation that many employers overlook.
Similar cases
Care assistant unfairly dismissed after flawed investigation into resident incidents
A care assistant with two years' service was unfairly dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after a flawed investigation. The tribunal awarded £27,316, including a 25% ACAS uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code.
Cleaners dismissed for alleged misconduct without any disciplinary meeting: unfair dismissal
Two cleaners were unfairly dismissed after their employer accused them of gross misconduct but failed to hold a disciplinary hearing or give details of the allegations. The tribunal awarded over £9,600 in compensation.
Team leader dismissed for defeating safety system wins unfair dismissal claim
A team leader with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into a safety breach. The tribunal found the employer's process was inadequate and reduced compensation by 20% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Support worker ambushed at disciplinary hearing: dismissal unfair due to inadequate investigation
A support worker was unfairly dismissed after a disciplinary hearing described as an 'ambush' with vague allegations. The tribunal awarded £9,111.12 in compensation.