17-year manager dismissed for credit note fraud: dismissal upheld
A General Manager with 17 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after his IT account was used to raise fraudulent credit notes worth £32,000. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected all other claims.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #fraud
- #gross-misconduct
- #credit-note-fraud
- #super-user-access
- #option-48
- #protected-disclosure
- #disability-not-established
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as General Manager from 2003 until dismissal on 31 January 2020.
- The claimant had enhanced IT access and could change his user profile to Super User, enabling use of Option 48 for credit notes.
- In October 2019, a customer tried to cash a fraudulent credit note raised at the claimant's depot, leading to an investigation.
- The investigation found that the claimant's user account was used to raise multiple fraudulent credit notes totalling about £32,000.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing; the appeal was rejected.
- The tribunal found the claimant did not make a protected disclosure and did not have a disability before September 2019.
Timeline
-
Claimant gains Super User access
The claimant changed his user profile to give himself Super User access to the IT system.
-
Option 48 blocked
The claimant reported misuse of Option 48, leading to its blocking for most users; the claimant retained access via Super User status.
-
Fatal accident at depot
A fatal accident occurred at a depot for which the claimant was responsible.
-
Fraudulent credit notes begin
According to Mr Nawaz, the claimant began raising fraudulent credit notes from around June 2019.
-
Credit note raised for Shah Convenience
A credit note for £4,320 was raised under the claimant's username for Shah Convenience.
-
Attempted cash of fraudulent credit note
Mr Nawaz attempted to cash a credit note for £4,120 at Bestway Manchester; the claimant reopened the suspended Shah Convenience account that day.
-
Investigation begins
Peter Deehan alerted Mr Mulroy to the fraudulent credit note, prompting an investigation.
-
Mr Nawaz implicates claimant
Mr Nawaz provided a statement alleging the claimant directed him to cash credit notes and received proceeds.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended from duties pending investigation.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The disciplinary hearing took place; the claimant did not access offered IT evidence.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct; the outcome letter was sent to an old address in error.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal hearing was held; the appeal was rejected on 27 February 2020.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for conduct (fraud), whether he made a protected disclosure about IT system flaws, and whether he had a disability before September 2019 that led to discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure, did not have a disability before September 2019, and was not unfairly dismissed. The dismissal for gross misconduct was fair because the employer genuinely believed the claimant was involved in fraud after a reasonable investigation. The claimant's other claims – including discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unauthorised deductions – also failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have enhanced IT access, be aware that your account activity is traceable and can be used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
- An employer's reasonable belief in misconduct, based on a thorough investigation, is enough to justify dismissal – even if the employee denies involvement.
- To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, you must show you made a protected disclosure before any alleged detriment – vague complaints about system flaws may not qualify.
- Disability discrimination claims require evidence of a disability at the time of the alleged discrimination; a later concession of disability does not apply retroactively.
- Representing yourself in a complex multi-claim tribunal case is challenging – legal representation can help navigate procedural and evidential issues.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how an employer can fairly dismiss a long-serving manager when there is strong circumstantial evidence of fraud. The claimant, a General Manager with 17 years' service, had given himself 'Super User' IT access. When fraudulent credit notes worth £32,000 were raised using his account, the employer investigated and dismissed him for gross misconduct. Despite the claimant's denial, the tribunal accepted that the employer genuinely believed in his involvement and had carried out a reasonable investigation.
What the employer did right
Bestway Wholesale Limited conducted a thorough investigation, including witness statements and IT evidence. The dismissing officer considered the claimant's explanations but concluded the evidence pointed to his involvement. The appeal process was also properly conducted. The tribunal noted that the employer's decision fell within the 'range of reasonable responses' – the legal test for fairness. Even though the outcome letter was sent to an old address, this procedural error did not make the dismissal unfair.
Why the other claims failed
The claimant also argued he had made a protected disclosure about IT system flaws in early 2019, but the tribunal found he had not disclosed information that tended to show a crime or legal breach. His disability discrimination claims failed because he did not have a disability (depression) until September 2019, after the alleged discrimination. The tribunal also rejected claims of direct discrimination, harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Key takeaway
For employees, this case is a reminder that enhanced IT privileges come with heightened scrutiny. For employers, it shows that a well-documented investigation and a genuine belief in misconduct – even without a confession – can support a fair dismissal. The case also highlights the difficulty of bringing multiple claims without strong evidence, especially when representing yourself.
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.