In Adenusi v London Underground Ltd, an employment tribunal held that the employee's dismissal for sexual harassment was unfair because the employer did not carry out a reasonable investigation.
In Uddin v London Borough of Ealing, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the investigating officer's failure to share a material fact with the decision-maker was relevant to the fairness of the dismissal.
In Kirk v Citibank NA and others, an employment tribunal held that a senior banker who was dismissed following a redundancy process was subjected to direct age discrimination and unfairly dismissed.
In Hall v Weightmans LLP, an employment tribunal found that the employee's dismissal for excessive internet use discovered during a disciplinary investigation was fair and that the appeal procedure followed was "textbook".
In Jagex Ltd v McCambridge, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employee had not acted in breach of contract or committed gross misconduct when he shared pay information with a colleague, after he found a document left on a printer containing the senior executive's salary.
In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti, the Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal for making protected disclosures is hidden behind an invented reason that is adopted by the decision-maker, the reason for the dismissal is the hidden reason rather than the invented one.
In Retirement Security Ltd v Wilson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer's "flawed" disciplinary investigation entitled the claimant to resign and successfully claim constructive dismissal.
In Ward v Fiducia Comprehensive Financial Planning Ltd, an employment tribunal upheld a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, finding that the employer had put inappropriate and excessive pressure on the employee to agree to an extended restrictive covenant following his resignation.
In Stolk v Hunts Foodservice Ltd and another, an employment tribunal awarded the claimant £11,028 after finding that pre-termination negotiations were admissible as evidence of pregnancy and maternity discrimination.
In Pazur v Lexington Catering Services Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a kitchen porter had been subjected to a detriment when he was threatened with dismissal after he refused to return to work following a breach of his right to a rest break.