Commercial manager dismissed for registering own company while employed by council
A 22-year council employee who set up a private company without telling his employer was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #gross-misconduct
- #conflict-of-interest
- #private-company
- #brexit
- #ce-marking
Key facts
- The claimant set up a private company, Cefndy Enables Limited, on 10 November 2020 without informing his employer.
- The claimant was a Commercial Service Manager at Cefndy Healthcare, a council-run business employing disabled people.
- The claimant had raised concerns about illegal trading and Brexit compliance before his suspension.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and not because of protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started work as a Revenues Assistant.
-
Appointed Commercial Service Manager
Claimant became Commercial Service Manager at Cefndy Healthcare.
-
New line manager appointed
Anne Lloyd took over line management of Cefndy Healthcare.
-
Formal grievance submitted
Claimant raised grievance about pay, car use, and ADM process.
-
Private company registered
Claimant registered Cefndy Enables Limited, with himself as sole director.
-
Protected disclosure email
Claimant emailed warning of 'unrecoverable and illegal situation' due to Brexit and CE marking issues.
-
Meeting about Brexit issues
Meeting with managers; claimant did not disclose his private company.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended for setting up a private company in breach of code of conduct.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing resulted in dismissal for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal panel upheld dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair because it was motivated by the claimant's protected disclosures about Brexit compliance, or whether it was a fair dismissal for conduct (conflict of interest).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct in setting up a private company without informing his employer, which breached the council's code of conduct. The protected disclosures were not the reason for dismissal. Even if there had been procedural issues, the tribunal found that dismissal was inevitable (100% Polkey reduction) and the claimant's own conduct contributed 100% to the decision.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always disclose any outside business interests or directorships to your employer, especially if your role involves commercial decisions.
- Raising genuine concerns about legal compliance does not give you a free pass to breach your employer's code of conduct.
- A long service record (22 years) does not automatically protect you from dismissal for gross misconduct if the breach is serious.
- If you set up a company that could compete or conflict with your employer's business, expect disciplinary action even if you intended no harm.
A conflict of interest that cost a career
The case shows how a failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest can unravel years of service, even when the employee had previously raised legitimate concerns about their employer's practices. The claimant, a Commercial Service Manager with 22 years' service, registered a private company with a similar name to his employer's business just days after emailing senior managers about what he called an 'unrecoverable and illegal situation' due to Brexit. He did not tell anyone at work about the company, and when asked directly about any conflicts of interest in a meeting two months later, he remained silent.
What the employer could have done differently
The council's investigation and disciplinary process were thorough. The claimant was suspended, investigated, and given a full disciplinary hearing with the opportunity to appeal. The tribunal noted that the disciplinary officer properly considered the claimant's long service and previously good record, but concluded that the breach of trust was too serious to allow the employment relationship to continue. The employer could have considered a lesser sanction, but the tribunal found that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses given the seriousness of the misconduct.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that employees who set up competing or potentially conflicting businesses without disclosure are at high risk of dismissal for gross misconduct. Even strong whistleblowing claims will not protect an employee who has committed a clear breach of the employer's code of conduct. The tribunal also applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning that even if the procedure had been flawed, the outcome would have been the same. This is a reminder that tribunals will not compensate employees who would have been dismissed anyway, regardless of procedural errors.
Similar cases
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Electrician dismissed after raising asbestos concerns: whistleblowing and wrongful dismissal claim succeeds
An electrician who raised asbestos safety concerns was dismissed for alleged expense fraud. The tribunal found the dismissal was tainted by whistleblowing and awarded nearly £20,000.
