M Sims v L M Technologies Ltd: 3312912/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2022 |
| Citation | 3312912/2020 |
| Date | 04 July 2022 |
| Published date | 02 August 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No: 3312912/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Michael Sims
Respondent: L M Technologies Limited
Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal
On: 9th – 12th May 2022 and 9th June 2022
Before: Employment Judge Shrimplin
Representation
Claimant: Mr. Somerville
Respondent: Mr. Braier
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s dismissal was not unfair.
REASONS
Background
1. The claim made by the claimant is that he was unfairly dismissed from his
employment at L M Technologies Ltd on 28th August 2020.
2. The claimant was employed as the managing director of L M Technologies Ltd
(the respondent) and had been since he formed the company with a colleague
in 2008. He was also named as a company director at Companies House and
was a minority shareholder of the respondent, holding approximately 14% of
the issued shares.
3. The claimant’s employment ceased on the 28th August 2020 in accordance
with a letter dated the same date which confirmed that was dismissed with
immediate effect and would be paid in lieu of notice and for leave not taken. In
addition, he was asked to resign as a company director in accordance with his
service agreement (clause 15.5).
Hearing
4. The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal was heard by me, via CVP, between
9th to 12th May during which time I heard evidence in person. I adjourned the
Case No: 3312912/2020
case to 9th June 2022 to hear submissions and complete the case. I received
written submissions from both counsel for the 9th June hearing, together with
one bundle containing authorities that both parties agreed was relevant of 500
pages and one additional bundle from respondent’s counsel at 50 pages.
Following oral submissions, judgment was reserved.
5. On 10th May 2020, I dealt with two applications made on behalf of the claimant.
The first was for details of the recent purchase of Mercia shares in LM
Technologies by Ms. Saras-Victoria. This was made apparent by her
supplemental witness statement at paragraph 14. The second application by
the claimant was for disclosure of the legal advice which is noted in paragraph
95 of Ms. Saras-Victoria’s original witness statement.
6. After hearing argument for both the claimant and the respondent and
considering a number of authorities which were provided to me, I refused both
applications. In respect of the first application, I was not satisfied, given the
facts of the case, that the material was relevant to the issues, nor was the
disclosure necessary for the fair disposal of the case. In respect of the second
application, the issue of whether legal privilege of documents has been waived
depends on the specific facts of each case. Having considered the authorities
and the facts of this matter, I did not consider that the threshold for waiver of
legal privilege had been met.
The issues
7. An agreed list of issues was provided jointly by counsel at the start of the
hearing as follows in respect of the claimant’s dismissal:
“1) What was/were the reason(s) for the claimant’s dismissal (“the Reason(s)”)?
2) Was the Reason(s) for the claimant’s dismissal, as found at 1. above, the reason(s)
given by the respondent in the letter of dismissal? If not, was the dismissal thus
unfair?
3) Was the Reason(s), as determined in respect of 1) above, potentially fair because
it:
a) Was for some other substantial reason pursuant to section 98(1)(b)
Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) resulting from an irretrievable
breakdown in trust and confidence with the respondent; or
b) related to the claimant’s conduct pursuant to section 98(2)(b)?
4) If it is found that one or more Reasons for the claimant’s dismissal were for a
potentially fair reason, for each:
a) Did the respondent conduct any investigation into any or all of either the
Reason(s) and/or the reasons set out in the letter of dismissal for the
claimant’s dismissal prior to:
i) any disciplinary action being taken against the claimant?
ii) the claimant’s dismissal?
5) Did the respondent provide the claimant with a fair opportunity to answer the
allegations against him prior to his dismissal?
6) If not, was it within the range of reasonable responses for the respondent to
conclude that it was futile to conduct an investigation or provide the claimant
with that opportunity to answer the allegations?
To continue reading
Request your trial