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.

Whistleblowing and the Importance of Proving Motive – Guideline Ruling

Establishing that an employee has made a protected disclosure is the first step on the path to success in any whistleblowing claim. However, as a case concerning a dismissed care homes manager showed, it is often much harder to prove that detrimental treatment is motivated by such a disclosure. The woman had been in post for only about six months when she was dismissed at the end of her probationary period. Her employer asserted that she was dismissed on grounds of capability or performance.…

Employers – Ignoring the Acas Code is Like Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Ignoring the Acas Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures is, in employment law terms, equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. The point was made by an Employment Tribunal (ET) in the case of a payroll clerk who was afforded no procedural safeguards before his boss sacked him on the spot. A director of the company for which the man worked accused him of throwing down some files on the floor. He denied the allegation but the director informed him that, if he was going to behave like…

Racism on the Shop Floor – Employers Can Expect to Carry the Can

Some shop floors are rough and ready places where foul language abounds, but if a worker makes a racist or other discriminatory comment it is likely to be the employer who ends up carrying the legal can. An Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling underlined the necessity of keeping a lid on things and nipping such conduct in the bud. The case concerned a black machine operator who was furious that his line manager had reported him for alleged unsafe use of machinery. A fierce altercation developed…