Do You Suspect Employee Fraud? Lawyers Can Move Fast to Protect You

If your business deals in valuable goods, dishonesty on the part of current or former employees is sadly a threat that cannot be ignored. However, as a High Court case showed, expert lawyers can move extremely fast to investigate such concerns and minimise your losses.

The case concerned…

Mar 18, 2022

Pexels athena 2582937 683x1024

If your business deals in valuable goods, dishonesty on the part of current or former employees is sadly a threat that cannot be ignored. However, as a High Court case showed, expert lawyers can move extremely fast to investigate such concerns and minimise your losses.

The case concerned a company that sourced high-value IT and other equipment for clients. It formed the view that a man who had until recently worked for it as a senior accounts manager was involved in a large-scale fraud. In the name of one of the company’s longstanding customers, he was said to have generated and processed 76 orders for 331 items that were delivered to the address of another man who was believed to be his brother.

Even before proceedings were formally issued, the company swiftly sought an interim injunction against both men. Due to concerns that, if put on the alert, they might take steps to dispose of relevant goods or disperse their assets, the order was applied for without advance notice being given to either man.

Granting the order sought, the Court noted that the company might or might not succeed in proving its case against the men at a full hearing. However, it had an apparently strong case against them. There was evidence that at least one of the items delivered had been sold on an internet auction site and there was reason to believe that, unless restrained, the alleged wrongdoing could continue.

The injunction froze the men’s assets up to a value of £300,000 each. It also forbade them from selling or otherwise disposing of relevant goods and required them to deliver up such goods to the company’s solicitors for safekeeping. The order permitted each of them to spend £750 a week on their ordinary living expenses and the Court emphasised that it remained open to them to apply to the Court for the order to be varied or discharged.

ET Failed to Consider Context in Victimisation Claim, EAT Rules

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a woman’s appeal against the dismissal of her complaint of victimisation, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had adopted too narrow a definition of what could constitute a protected act and had not sufficiently analysed the context in which the complaint that was said to be a protected act was made. The woman had worked for a pharmacy business since 2001. In 2018 she moved to another of the business’s stores, where she was the only black…

Employers – Feelings of Unfairness Cannot Justify Penalising Whistleblowers

Even employers who feel that they have been unfairly criticised have no excuse for targeting whistleblowers for detrimental treatment. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in the case of a senior care worker who raised welfare and safeguarding concerns affecting residents in a care home. After making the disclosures, both to the care home’s owner and to public healthcare authorities, the woman was suspended. She resigned in the midst of a disciplinary process and launched ET…

No Transfer of Vicarious Liability Under TUPE, High Court Rules

When a transfer of a business takes place to which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) applies, does any vicarious liability of the original employer to a third party for wrongdoing by an employee transfer to the new employer? The High Court has answered that question with a resounding ‘no’. A woman was seeking damages for wrongs suffered while she had been a hospital inpatient. She claimed that the company that had owned the hospital was responsible…