In East Coast Main Line Company Limited v Mr J Cameron the questions considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal were whether the judgment of the Employment Tribunal, based on the facts, was perverse, and whether the Tribunal should have taken into account Mr Cameron’s long service when considering his claim for wrongful dismissal. Mr Cameron…
In June 2014, when The AA was taken public in what was described as a management buy-in, chartered accountant Bob McKenzie was appointed as its chief executive on a base salary of £750,000.
On 1 August 2017 he was sacked for gross misconduct after he was reported to have to have got into a hotel bar fight with one of the Company’s senior managers. He was reported to have engaged in “a sustained and violent attack” on the manager which was captured on the hotel’s CCTV. Days after the incident he was removed from the board. As a result of being dismissed for gross misconduct, thereby disqualifying himself from any further contractual benefits, he stood to lose what was estimated at the time to be about £100m in share awards. Following his dismissal Mr McKenzie admitted himself to hospital suffering from work related stress.
He was known as strong boardroom performer, driven by financial returns. In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph in 2016 he said of his employment prior to joining The AA:
“Work hard and play hard: you were given targets and you met them or else you parted company.”
Shortly following his appointment, chief executive Chris Jansen left abruptly, followed finance director Andy Boland. Mr McKenzie assumed the (much criticised) dual role of chairman and chief executive, assuming greater power in 2015 by absorbing the duties of executive director Nick Hewitt, architect of the business plan that led to the float, who also left abruptly.
Mr McKenzie instructed top City firm Bird and Bird and in January 2018 The AA declared that it was “astonished” that Mr McKenzie had commenced an unfair dismissal claim in the employment tribunal, with the intention of bringing a wrongful dismissal claim for “tens of millions of pounds” in the High Court.
Embed from Getty ImagesOver the last few weeks the High Court has heard some astonishing evidence in the bitter wrongful dismissal claim brought by the former CEO of Signia, a wealth management company, as reported in The Independent.
High profile entrepreneur John Caudwell has frequently made the news over the last couple of decades. The founder of mobile phones retailer Phones 4U has presented himself as a forthright, no-nonsense style of businessman. According to the website Caudwell.com (owned, registered and administered by one John D Caudwell and which is currently “down for maintenance”) he is a “successful entrepreneur and philanthropist” who “built an immensely successful mobile telecoms company”.
Signia is a wealth management company that was jointly founded by Nathalie Dauriac and six of her Coutts Bank colleagues in 2010. Another co-founder was Mr Caudwell. The business focuses on high end wealth management. All appeared to be well until details emerged of an extraordinary dispute between Ms Dauriac and Mr Caudwell, ostensibly in connection with expenses claims amounting to some £33,000. Ms Dauriac claimed that the expenses investigation was unfair and was, in effect, trumped up to deprive her of her £12 million 49% stake in the business, which was bought out for a nominal £2.00 fee.
Giving evidence in the High Court trial Ms Dauriac says that when they set up the business in 2010, “Mr Caudwell had asked me…as a last minute condition of jointly setting up the business, to give an undertaking to him not to have children, a proposal I did not agree to”.
Ms Dauriac claimed in evidence that Mr Caudwell orchestrated an “elaborate conspiracy” against her, resulting in her claim of constructive dismissal.
For its part, Signia maintained that she wrongfully claimed the expenses, that her approach to them was “brazen” and that she was “guilty of gross misconduct”.
In his evidence, Mr Caudwell said that the breakdown of his business relationship with Ms Dauriac, who he considered to be a “best friend” was like suffering a “bereavement”:
When we advise SMEs that are contemplating steps which might lead to the termination of an employee’s employment, one of the first steps is to establish one of the “potentially fair reasons” for dismissal. As most readers will know they are (1) conduct or misconduct, (2) capability or performance, (3) redundancy, (4) to avoid breaking…
Can a worker be dismissed for refusing to leave a partner convicted of unrelated criminal conduct with which the dismissed worker was not involved? This question was considered in the recent case of Pendleton v Derbyshire County Council & Anor (Religion or Belief Discrimination)  UKEAT 0238 15 2903. The facts of this case were…