Unfair dismissal win but zero compensation: procedural flaws didn't save manager
An operations manager with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into financial irregularities, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #outside-business-interest
- #financial-irregularities
- #bounce-back-loan-abuse
- #polkey-reduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Operations and Control Manager from 5 December 2011 to 21 February 2022.
- The claimant was a director of Prime Solutions (2020) Ltd without permission.
- Over £2.7 million in financial irregularities were found in the claimant's accounts.
- The claimant obtained a £48,000 bounce back loan for the company.
- The respondent's investigation had multiple procedural defects.
- The claimant did not attend the disciplinary or appeal hearings.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant commenced employment with Santander UK PLC.
-
Company incorporation
Prime Solutions (2020) Ltd was incorporated, with the claimant as director.
-
SIU notified
HR informed the Special Investigations Unit about the claimant's outside business interest.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended an investigation meeting with minimal notice; he was suspended the same day.
-
Disciplinary referral
Claimant informed that the matter would proceed to a disciplinary hearing.
-
Arrest and release
Claimant was arrested, questioned, and released under investigation by police.
-
Disciplinary invite
Formal invite to disciplinary hearing sent, listing three allegations.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Hearing proceeded in claimant's absence; he was dismissed.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment terminated.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing proceeded in claimant's absence; appeal dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair due to procedural defects in the investigation, and if so, whether compensation should be reduced because a fair dismissal would still have happened or because the claimant contributed to his own dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the investigation had multiple procedural defects, including inadequate notice of the investigation meeting and failure to follow the respondent's own procedures.
However, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning that even with a fair procedure, the claimant would have been dismissed anyway given the seriousness of the allegations. It also applied a 100% reduction for contributory conduct, finding the claimant's actions were culpable and blameworthy.
As a result, the claimant received no compensation:
- Basic award: £0 (reduced by 100% for contributory conduct)
- Compensatory award: £0 (reduced by 100% on Polkey principles and 100% for contributory conduct)
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if an employer's investigation is flawed, compensation can be wiped out if the employee's own misconduct would have led to dismissal anyway.
- Employees who engage in serious misconduct, such as undisclosed outside business interests or financial irregularities, face a high risk of zero compensation even if they win on unfair dismissal.
- Procedural defects alone don't guarantee a payout — tribunals will assess whether a fair process would have changed the outcome.
- Claimants who fail to attend disciplinary or appeal hearings may weaken their case, as the employer can proceed in their absence.
A procedural win that led to nothing
This case shows that winning an unfair dismissal claim doesn't always mean receiving compensation. The claimant, an Operations and Control Manager with 11 years' service at Santander UK PLC, was dismissed after an investigation revealed he was a director of a company without permission, and that over £2.7 million in financial irregularities had been found in his accounts. He had also obtained a £48,000 bounce back loan for the company.
The tribunal found the investigation was procedurally flawed — for example, the claimant was given minimal notice of the investigation meeting and the employer didn't follow its own procedures. On that basis, the dismissal was unfair.
Why compensation was zero
However, the tribunal then considered what would have happened if a fair procedure had been followed. It concluded that the allegations were so serious that dismissal was inevitable — a 100% Polkey reduction. It also found the claimant's conduct was culpable and blameworthy, justifying a 100% reduction for contribution. The result: no compensation at all.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that procedural unfairness alone may not lead to a payout if the underlying conduct is serious enough to justify dismissal. For employers, it shows that even a flawed process can be saved if the outcome would have been the same. But relying on that is risky — better to get the procedure right first time.
Similar cases
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.
Travel consultant dismissed for second job during furlough: unfair but no compensation
A travel consultant was unfairly dismissed for working a second job without permission while on furlough, but the tribunal awarded nothing due to Polkey and contributory fault reductions.
Caretaker unfairly dismissed after council panel included complainants' spouses
A part-time caretaker was unfairly dismissed by Fordbridge Town Council after a disciplinary panel included the wife of a complainant and an appeal panel included the husband of a witness. The tribunal awarded £1,060.41.