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

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.

Financial Consultant Who Failed to Disclose Bankruptcy Fairly Dismissed

You would generally be right to think that what goes on in your life away from your workplace is nobody’s business but your own. In one case, however, a financial consultant’s failure to disclose his bankruptcy to his employer was ruled by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to be a sufficient ground for dismissal. The man, who worked for an estate agency, was suffering financial difficulties after prolonged periods on sick leave and was declared bankrupt at his own behest. His bankruptcy came…

Peculiar Scoring System Rendered Genuine Redundancy Exercise Unfair

A redundancy exercise may be based on reasonable criteria yet flaws in the scoring system used to assess employees’ performance may still render a dismissal unfair. In a case on point, an Employment Tribunal (ET) identified a number of errors and peculiarities in a scoring procedure that led to an agency worker wrongly losing his job. Faced with a business downturn arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the employer selected a group of eight workers on the basis of their length of service, from…

Use of Discriminatory Words in the Workplace – Context Always Matters

Employers are entitled to enforce zero-tolerance policies in respect of discriminatory remarks in the workplace. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, a thorough investigation is always required prior to a dismissal, not least because words that may be utterly unacceptable in one context may not be in another. A sales manager with an otherwise blemish-free disciplinary record was summarily dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct on the basis that he had used the discriminatory…