Mr M Humphrey v Barclays Execution Services Ltd: 6007857/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6007857/2025

Between

Mr M HumphreyClaimant

Barclays Execution Services LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Othen

Date 30 September 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The claimant brings an unfair dismissal claim against the respondent. He claims that his dismissal was unfair within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[2]The respondent contests the claim. It says that the claimant was fairly dismissed for misconduct.

[3]The claimant represented himself and gave sworn evidence. The respondent was represented by Ms Page, counsel, who called sworn evidence from Mr A Warner – Investigation Manager, Mr S Cunningham, Dismissing Manager and Mr M Sherry, Appeal Manager . I considered the documents and witness statements from an agreed 494-page Bundle of Documents. Ancillary matters Issue 1.

[4]The claimant suffers from cluster headaches and at the outset of the hearing, adjustments were discussed with him to accommodate any symptoms from this. It was agreed that he should be able to take regular breaks and should his symptoms affect him at any time, he should bring this to my attention.

[5]On the start of the second day of the hearing, the claimant joined approximately 45 minutes late. He explained that overnight, he had received a document from the respondent which had caused him stress which had in turn, affected his cluster headaches. Respondent's counsel explained that the claimant had, in error, been sent a privileged document which was not intended for distribution. This was a communication between respondent's counsel and the respondent regarding progress of the first day of the hearing including comments about the claimant's evidence and his conduct during crossexamination. It apologised for this genuine error. It was discussed however, that none of the contents of this communication included anything significantly different to the points which had been put already or would be put to the claimant in cross examination.

[6]After discussion with the claimant, it was agreed that he would need a break of a further 30 minutes in order for his cluster headache symptoms to subside with appropriate medication. The hearing was therefore adjourned from 11.06 AM to 11.40 AM. The hearing resumed again at 11.48 AM and the claimant confirmed that his symptoms had subsided completely and that he wished to proceed with the hearing. Issue 2.

[7]An application was made by the respondent to adduce further documentary evidence as referred to in paragraph 53 below. This evidence was admitted, by agreement with the claimant, as all parties agreed that it was relevant to the issues in dispute. Relevant Issues.

[8]It was agreed with the parties that the relevant issues to be determined with regard to liability were as follows:8.1 What was the principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal and was it a potentially fair reason under sections 98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996? The respondent asserted that it was a reason relating to the claimant’s conduct.

8.2 If so, was the dismissal fair or unfair within section 98(4). In particular, the claimant alleged that there was no fair investigation and no reasonable belief in the alleged misconduct.

Findings of fact

[9]The relevant facts are as follows. Where I have had to resolve any conflict of evidence, I indicate how I have done so at the material point. References to page numbers are to the agreed Bundle of Documents.

[10]The claimant was employed as Assistant Vice President: "Equity Derivatives Middle Office" on a trading desk for the respondent from 27 October 2014. His line manager was Sajid Kara. The Vice President for Equity Derivatives Control was Laura Sweeden and the Director of Equities and Commodities was Yatin Patel.

[11]The respondent's Code of conduct and disciplinary process was at page 75 of the bundle.11.1 "Rule 1: You must act with integrity: for Barclays, this means acting in accordance with our Barclays value and code of conduct (the Barclay's Way). If an individual breaches Conduct Rule 1, they may have acted dishonestly, recklessly or otherwise with a defective moral compass, where they are unable to tell right from wrong within normal standards."

11.2 "Rule 4: You must pay due regard to the interests of customers and treat them fairly: at Barclays, we understand the importance of our customers and clients to our own success. This Conduct Rule looks to protect our customers and ensure every individual understands their personal accountability to pay due regard to the interests of a customer and treat them fairly, including consideration of how acts, omissions or business practices could reasonably be expected to result in a customer being treated unfairly."

[12]At pg. 76 the rules set out that a breach of any conduct rule can result in disciplinary action including dismissal.

[13]Although not in bundle, undisputed evidence was that the respondent's Communication Policy required business communications to be conducted via prescribed channels, and communications via iMessage and text were not permitted. The claimant received training on these policies in 2023; this was not disputed by the claimant.

[14]A function of the claimant's team was to perform report-based tasks, including checks and calculations. One of the claimant's direct reports was a Mr Faisal Hassan ("FH").

[15]On 22 January 2024, from 1.38pm, a written exchange took place between FH and the claimant on Microsoft Teams Chat (pg. 149-150). Put simply, FH raised the possibility that a client fee had been calculated incorrectly; at a percentage rate of 0.6%. He copied an extract from a spreadsheet and stated "..the above 0.60% doesn’t look correct". The claimant responded to say: "this should be 0.5%".

[16]It was then agreed that the calculation spreadsheet would be amended, with the claimant saying: "Let me build a formula to add into those cells". FH then responded to say: "I have amended my calc sheet and cross checked for the current Qtr this is fine but previous ones look incorrect based on this". Five minutes later, the claimant replied, saying: "check your mobile".

[17]FH and the claimant then communicated by text from 1.45pm (pg. 136). The claimant firstly checked that he was communicating with FH. He then said: 17.1 "so just checked back in your find… This goes back to the very start of the Fee…. Well it's been wrong since at least 2019… Big can of worms we are about to open".

[18]FH responded with concern and the claimant continued by stating the following: 18.1 "I'm half tempted to just correct this quarter and move on … Save ourselves the fucking headache… Yeah-this is what we'll do… I'll automate the formula… And send a mail telling you to adjust the cells…. Otherwise-wait until one of us leaves then open the can of worms then :)… Ok-just send a mail, idea is we update the formula-on all 3 tabs making the spreadsheet more robust".

[19]FH indicated his agreement to this course of action.

[20]At 2:09 PM, the claimant then sent an email to FH, copied to Laura Sweeden and the EQD Middle Office mailbox ("The Email") with the subject line: "[Redacted client name] Quarterly Fee-Formula Update". The email stated: "I was just looking at the [Redacted client name]-specifically the Put Premium (APP figure)". It then copied some spreadsheets extracts which included the percentage fee rate of 0.50%. It observed that: "currently, we manually update this figure….I thought we can add a formula to do it for us-or advise if it needs a change?". The claimant then continued to explain changes to the formula on relevant cells which he proposed to incorporate and concluded: "this should make this calculation a little more robust-let me know your thoughts?" (Page 146).

[21]Laura Sweeden responded a few minutes later, at 2:13 PM, to state: "I am happy with the updates if Faisal is and that I am receptive to improvements and open to anything that is going to make our process more robust".

[22]Approximately half an hour later, at 2:43 PM, FH contacted Laura Sweeden by Teams chat stating that he needed to raise a concern and wanted to speak to her when she was free. Laura Sweeden responded acknowledging his message, stating that she had another urgent call to deal with and asking him whether his enquiry could wait until the following morning but FH explained that the matter was urgent. He suggested that he could speak to Yatin Patel or to Sajid Kara instead.

[23]FH later spoke to Yatin Patel on the same afternoon. He disclosed the general issue and discussion with the claimant to him but did not inform Mr Patel about the exchange of text messages and their details. Mr Patel then discussed the matter as appropriate, including with Sajid Kara, the claimant's line manager and Laura Sweeden.

[24]A conversation then took place between Mr Patel, Laura Sweeden and the claimant during which the general issue was discussed. How this conversation came about, its exact timing and content vary, according to explanations provided by the respondent and the claimant, regarding which, further details are provided below. The parties agree that some time was spent considering the fee percentage which should have been/should be applied in the particular circumstances and another employee (Nicholas Kyriacos) was asked for his input. The outcome was that it was all agreed that the correct percentage fee rate which should have been applied to this particular client fee was in fact 0.6% (as had been applied) and not 0.5% as the claimant had subsequently thought.

[25]As a result, Laura Sweeden then advised FH by way of Teams chat at 5.07 PM that the matter had been resolved satisfactorily. FH asked to speak to Laura again. At that point, FH disclosed the exchange of text messages to her, explaining that he wanted to raise an official concern. Laura Sweeden then escalated the matter to Mr Kara and the following day, on 23 January 2024, a more detailed discussion took place between FH, Laura Sweeden and Mr Kara regarding what FH wished to report. FH then send copies of screenshots with the text exchange with the claimant.

[26]The matter was then referred as a potential misconduct issue, to Andrew Warner, a Vice President for Product Development, to investigate. Mr Warner did not know the claimant but had been asked to investigate by Mr Patel as he had completed relevant training on investigations.

[27]Mr Warner spoke to FH first, on 15 February 2024. The notes of this meeting are at pages 127-130). On page 128, FH is noted to have said that he felt like he had: "… been put in a corner" and ".. coerced to conceal the issue and wanted to raise this is a concern without much knowledge, in fear of any retaliation or further communication".

[28]Mr Warner then chose to interview the claimant the following day, on 16 February 2024 and the notes of that meeting are at pages 132-134. Mr Warner's evidence was that the conversation with the claimant was very difficult and he could not get any information from him. Initially, the claimant completely denied the issue but then, Mr Warner shared with him a copy of the text messages and Teams chat which had been disclosed by FH. The claimant then started to be more open but the conversation still only lasted 20 minutes and Mr Warner felt like he was "trying to get blood from a stone". I accept this evidence as it is consistent with the notes of this meeting which the claimant later accepted was an accurate reflection of the conversation (page 135).

[29]An investigation report was then prepared by Mr Warner (pg. 101-109). This concluded that there was a disciplinary case to answer on the basis that the claimant had appeared to breach the respondent's policies and rules as set out in paragraphs 11 and 13 above.

[30]Mr Struan Cunningham was then appointed as a disciplinary manager to consider the case. He was provided with a copy of the investigation report by Mr Warner which he reviewed. He then invited the claimant to a disciplinary hearing by way of letter dated 22 March 2024 (page 112). The disciplinary allegations in the invitation letter were stated as follows:30.1 "On 22nd January 2024, whilst working on client fee calculations, it is alleged that you were made aware via MS Teams of an issue by a junior colleague, that a fee being charged to a client was incorrect, but then took the conversation to non-approved communication with the colleague, iMessage, to advise that they should not investigate further and to correct the issue at hand (i.e. fix the current quarter only).

30.2 When asked whether historical fees charged to the client should be looked at, you stated that this may well "open a can of worms" and that any possible historical issue should not be disclosed.

30.3 You advised the colleague that that if one of the two of you left the firm then the other could raise an issue on the historical fee calculation and therefore hide the issue."

[31]The letter also explained how these allegations were said to breach the respondent's conduct rules, policies, procedures and guidance, as well as stating that Mr Cunningham would also consider whether they might breach the FCA/PRA Conduct Rules. A copy of relevant policies, along with the investigation report and disciplinary process was sent to the claimant with the letter.

[32]A disciplinary hearing took place with the claimant on 26 March 2024 at 11:30 AM and the notes are on pages 153-158. With regard to the allegations made, the claimant is noted to have said that:32.1 the reason why he asked to speak to FH by way of text on 22 January 2024 was that FH was shown to have been "away on Teams".

32.2 He asked FH to check his phone as he urgently needed to speak to him to resolve the issue.

32.3 The Teams messages demonstrated that he was "actively looking into the issue" and investigating it.

32.4 The comments made by text were made in jest and his use of the phrase "can of worms" meant that there would be a full investigation.

32.5 That The Email outlined a manual update and proposed "ideas for a dynamic formula".

[33]Mr Cunningham's witness statement at paragraph 15 states: "The claimant was adamant that he had dealt with the issue by sending an email [The Email] detailing process enhancement. However in that email he did not point out the actual issue. At no point did he reference or escalate that he or Mr Hassan had identified the potential incorrect fee calculation which, to me, would have been critical to escalate a client had potentially been overcharged a large sum of money".

[34]On the same day, 26 March 2024, The claimant sent to Mr Cunningham some further evidence to consider by way of an email (page 141). This included a timeline document prepared by him (page 148-152).

[35]Approximately half an hour later, he also sent to Mr Cunningham a spreadsheet which appears at page 140. The attachment description of that spreadsheet, in the email at page 139, is stated to be "Fee Calculation.xlsx".

[36]In his timeline, the claimant indicated that at 2.15pm on 22 January 2024, just after he had sent The Email, he had approached Laura Sweeden and Mr Kara to "expand on the potential implications and the need to investigate further". In response to this, they then went back to the claimant's desk to discuss the issue and the subsequent conversation with Nicholas Kyriacos then took place which resolved it.

[37]Mr Cunningham then went on to interview FH, Sajid Kara, Yatin Patel, and Laura Sweeden.

[38]Laura Sweeden explained that the email that she had received from the claimant on 22 January 2024 was about a process enhancement; it did not state that there were any underlying concerns or that the reason for the suggested change to the formula was because of an error having been made with the fees charged to the relevant client (page 159-160). Following this interview, Laura Sweeden sent to Mr Cunningham a timeline which had been prepared by her on 23 January 2024 and which appears at page 168-173. Mr Cunningham explained in his witness statement that he found this timeline to be useful as a factual source of evidence. As a matter of fact, this timeline largely quotes directly from emails and other communications at the time, including screenshots, and to that extent is a reliable source of evidence.

[39]Laura Sweeden's timeline stated that the conversation that took place between Mr Kara, the claimant and Laura Sweeden had been at 4:45 PM that day, following the initial report of the concern by FH and his conversation with Mr Patel.

[40]In cross examination, the claimant was challenged on his version of this conversation as represented in his timeline. It was put to him that he did not approach Laura Sweeden and Mr Kara just after The Email had been sent, at 2.15pm, and in fact, the conversation was initiated by them at 4.45pm as Ms Sweeden's timeline had indicated. He disputed this but did concede that his timeline should have stated the correct time as being 4.15 p.m. instead of 4.45pm. I find that Laura Sweeden's timeline is more reliable in this regard as it is consistent with the evidence given during the disciplinary interviews by the other witnesses indicated above, in the notes referred to below.

[41]The subsequent interviews with the other witnesses took place later in April 2024. The notes from those interviews largely corroborate each other. Some relevant points to note are:41.1 that when asked by Mr Cunningham, both FH and Mr Kara are noted to have said that they did not feel that the comments made by the claimant during the text messages represented typical humour by him (page 175 and 178).

41.2 when asked about how concerns were generally raised amongst the team, Mr Kara explained that this would be done via the team channel or through phone call to him which would then be escalated to find a solution.

[42]Mr Cunningham decided to dismiss the claimant. He communicated this at a meeting on 15 October 2024 which the claimant left prematurely. He therefore followed this with a letter of the same date which was five pages in length and fully detailed the reasons for his decision and the evidence on which his decision had been based. This letter corroborates the witness statement and evidence of Mr Cunningham which includes the following reasons for his decision to dismiss (in no particular order):42.1 The behaviour of the claimant had demonstrated deliberate intent to conceal an error.

42.2 When he concluded that the fee percentage charge had been incorrect, he went off-line to try and hide it.

42.3 At no point did he expressly mention the potential error to anyone, other than FH, before it was resolved.

42.4 He tried to mask the issue in future, by disguising it by way of a process enhancement in The Email.

42.5 This had impacted the ability of FH to trust him. This put a junior colleague (FH) in a compromised position.

42.6 The language used by the claimant in subsequent text messages demonstrated his knowledge of the potential impact of the error which he had intended to conceal and its potential impact on the respondent's client.

42.7 The claimant was in breach of the respondent's rules, guidelines and policies as set out in paragraph 11 and 13 above.

42.8 The claimant's role within scope of the FCA/PRA Conduct Rules.

42.9 The potential consequences of the claimant's intended actions could have been financially and reputationally significant.

42.10 Trust had broken down between the claimant and the respondent because of his actions.

[43]The claimant appealed against the dismissal decision. The reason stated for his appeal by way of an email dated 22 October 2024 was that: "the decision was unfair and there is relevant new information that should be considered" (page 196).

[44]Mr Miles Sherry, Wealth Manager for the respondent's Private Banking and Wealth Management Division was appointed to hear the claimant's appeal. The documents from the investigation and disciplinary process were provided to him by Mr Cunningham. He then contacted the claimant by way of email on 1 November 2024 (page 201). The claimant responded with an email on the same day (page 199) to advise him of his condition of chronic cluster headaches and to provide further information and evidence. The main details were as follows:44.1 That he had provided Mr Cunningham with a spreadsheet which he stated he was working on and which was saved by him at the time that the accusation was made. He had provided this as evidence but it was not appropriately considered by Mr Cunningham.

44.2 That Mr Patel had made a comment that a formula used by the claimant in the initial investigation was incorrect, and this was not true.

44.3 That when he had provided information which conflicted with the evidence from the investigation, no checks had been done to "ascertain the truth".

44.4 That the conclusion that had been drawn that the claimant was not using humour during his text messages with FH was incorrect and that this could be demonstrated by other text messages.

[45]In a subsequent email from the claimant dated 6 November 2024, the claimant stated that the Excel spreadsheet with which he had provided Mr Cunningham was "not one I was working on with my management" (pg. 209). He then explained that he felt this to be important to his case.

[46]An appeal hearing took place on 15 November 2024 and the notes are at pages 213-221. The claimant was accompanied by his trade union representative.

[47]As well as discussing the other grounds for the claimant's appeal, the claimant discussed his use of humour, as evidenced by a screenshot at page 200 in the bundle, which he said demonstrated a humorous exchange with Nicholas Kyriacos.

[48]There was also a detailed discussion about the spreadsheet issue raised by the claimant. Mr Sherry is noted to have said: "I have initially looked through the case and there is more than one Excel spreadsheet". He asked the claimant for the file name of the spreadsheet to which he was referring and the date on which that was provided to Mr Cunningham. The claimant then replied that it was provided to Mr Cunningham: "at the end of the investigation meeting we had". He did not give a file name or date but said that it was the only spreadsheet provided to Mr Cunningham. He explained that its significance was that he had been given: "approval from Laura to re-examine a legacy calculation, I then began to do the work to understand what the implications would be. Faisal has brought me a problem I have investigated it…."

[49]In his witness statement, the claimant explained that the screenshot of the spreadsheet that had been included at page 140 was not the full spreadsheet and did not show what he asserted, was: "well over an hour's work". The claimant's evidence was that he had begun work on the spreadsheet as part of his investigation after FH had raised the issue earlier that day.

[50]In the bundle at page 224 was a screenshot of the property values of a spreadsheet which was shown to have been created on 22 January 2024 at 4:35 PM.

[51]During cross-examination, the claimant asserted that screenshot at page 224 did not pertain to the spreadsheet which he had sent to Mr Cunningham at pages 139/140 because this spreadsheet was only created at 4:35 PM, minutes before this issue was discussed between Laura Sweeden, Mr Kara and himself. He said that this related to a different spreadsheet. This had not been asserted in his witness statement

[52]The respondent challenged the claimant on this assertion, suggesting to the claimant that the spreadsheet at page 140 had taken minutes and this was consistent with the fact that it was created at 4.35 PM , which undermined the claimant's evidence about the "investigation" which he had reportedly undertaken.

[53]After cross-examination of the claimant had finished, during the lunch break of the second day of the hearing, the respondent sought to adduce new evidence, to be added to the bundle as pages 495-496. This comprised a copy of the email which had been sent by the claimant to Mr Cunningham on 26 March 2024 as set out in paragraph 35 above (which showed the spreadsheet file name which was attached to that email as "Fee Calculation.xlsx") along with a further screenshot of the property values which the respondent asserted related to the spreadsheet attached to that email. This clearly showed that the file name of that spreadsheet was also "Fee Calculation.xlsx". It again showed that this spreadsheet had been created on 22 January 2024 at 4.35 PM. Both parties agreed that this evidence was relevant and should be admitted.

[54]After the appeal hearing with the claimant, Mr Sherry concluded that he wished to further investigate issues regarding the claimant's use of humour and the spreadsheet.

[55]Mr Sherry organised a meeting with Nicholas Kyriacos who informed him that he did not think that the claimant would joke in a serious work-related situation. He further arranged a meeting with Laura Sweeden with whom he discussed the spreadsheet on which the claimant sought to rely as evidence that he had undertaken a detailed investigation process before speaking to her on 22 January 2024. She confirmed that she did not see a spreadsheet at the time (page 227). She also later confirmed, by way of email dated 20 December 2024, that she had never seen a copy of the spreadsheet which was at page 140 in the bundle.

[56]The claimant's appeal was not upheld by Mr Sherry. This outcome was shared with the claimant by way of an appeal outcome letter dated 17 January 2025 (the claimant had previously indicated that he wished to receive this outcome in writing rather than meeting). Mr Sherry's witness evidence regarding the reasons for his conclusions are corroborated by this letter. They include the following points, in no particular order:56.1 He had seen no new evidence during the appeal process to support a conclusion to overturn the decision to dismiss.

56.2 There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claimant used humour in serious situations and instead, Mr Sherry found that the text messages were a genuine attempt to encourage FH to ignore a fee calculation error.

56.3 He found no evidence to believe that the spreadsheet which the claimant had sent to Mr Cunningham to consider as part of the evidence on his behalf had not been properly considered by him. The time and date of the spreadsheet supported his view that this had been created only once he was aware that others knew of the problem, at approximately 4:35 PM on 22 January 2024.

56.4 He agreed that the claimant's behaviour amounted to gross misconduct as a breach of Conduct Rules 1 and 4.

Relevant law

[57]Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 confers on employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Enforcement of the right is by way of complaint to the Tribunal under section 111. In this case the respondent admits that it dismissed the claimant (within section 95(1)(a) of the 1996 Act) on 15 October 2024.

[58]Section 98 of the 1996 Act deals with the fairness of dismissals. There are two stages within section 98. First, the employer must show that it had a potentially fair reason for the dismissal within section 98(2). Second, if the respondent shows that it had a potentially fair reason for the dismissal, the Tribunal must consider, without there being any burden of proof on either party, whether the respondent acted fairly or unfairly in dismissing for that reason.

[59]In this case it is not in dispute that the respondent dismissed the claimant because of his conduct. The respondent has satisfied the requirements of section 98(2).

[60]Section 98(4) then deals with fairness generally and provides that the determination of the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, having regard to the reason shown by the employer, shall depend on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

[61]In misconduct dismissals, there is well-established guidance for Tribunals on fairness within section 98(4) in the decisions in Burchell

1978 IRLR 379

and Post Office v Foley

2000 IRLR 827

. The Tribunal must decide whether the employer had a genuine belief in the employee’s guilt. Then the Tribunal must decide whether the employer held such genuine belief on reasonable grounds and after carrying out a reasonable investigation. In all aspects of the case, including the investigation, the grounds for belief, the penalty imposed, and the procedure followed, in deciding whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably within section 98(4), the Tribunal must decide whether the employer acted within the band or range of reasonable responses open to an employer in the circumstances. It is immaterial how the Tribunal would have handled the events or what decision it would have made, and the Tribunal must not substitute its view for that of the reasonable employer (Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones

1982 IRLR 439

, Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Hitt

2003 IRLR 23

, and London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small

2009 IRLR 563

). Conclusions Genuine belief

Conclusions

[62]I accept that the dismissing manager (and the appeal manager) had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct. There is no evidence that either had another reason for the claimant's dismissal. The allegations of misconduct made against the claimant were set out in paragraphs 30 above. The evidence from the disciplinary process, including the letter of dismissal, is consistent with a genuine belief that the claimant had behaved in a manner which amounted to that misconduct. Was that belief reasonably held based on a reasonable investigation?

[63]I am of the view that that belief was based on a reasonable investigation. It comprised:63.1 An investigation conducted by Mr Warner who interviewed the claimant and FH and then prepared a comprehensive investigation report which referred to other documents.

63.2 A disciplinary process managed by Mr Cunningham which included an interview with the claimant and with the various other witnesses who could give direct evidence about what had taken place. Notes were kept of all these interview meetings. Mr Cunningham considered various other documents including the investigation report and conduct rules and policy documents.

63.3 An appeal process managed by Mr Sherry which included further meetings, again with the claimant and two other witnesses.

[64]There was no evidence of bias. The managers who handled the three separate stages above were independent and the evidence demonstrates that they considered the disciplinary case against the claimant fairly and impartially, including the investigation of evidence raised by the claimant at the separate stages of the disciplinary process.

[65]I am also of the opinion that the belief held of the claimant's misconduct was a reasonable one for the following reasons:65.1 The letter of dismissal carefully explains all the reasons upon which Mr Cunningham's belief was based, including the evidence which was taken into account in drawing this conclusion.

65.2 Mr Cunningham was entitled to believe the versions of events presented by the other witnesses: FH, Laura Sweeden and others, and it was reasonable to do so. Those witnesses corroborated each other. Their versions of events were consistent and corresponded to the documentary evidence. The claimant, by comparison, had a vested interest in misrepresenting matters to his advantage.

65.3 It was reasonable for both Mr Cunningham and Mr Sherry to consider the evidence in context. It was not disputed by the claimant that he should not have discussed this issue by way of text with FH. He knew that this was not an authorised communication channel. It was therefore reasonable to conclude that he wished to conceal this communication with FH, given that he had initiated this unauthorised messaging and also reasonable to consider that what the claimant said within those text messages was untrustworthy and was not said in jest. It was further reasonable to place great reliance on this particular evidence.

65.4 It was reasonable to conclude that The Email was not an attempt by the claimant to alert Laura Sweeden to a significant problem in overcharging one of its clients. This was not an email to her and did not at any stage expressly refer to this problem. Especially in the context of the previous communications with FH, and given what he said he was going to do next in the text messages, it was reasonable to conclude that this was an attempt by the claimant to mask the problem for future calculations.

65.5 It was reasonable for both Mr Cunningham and Mr Sherry to conclude that this issue was only raised when Laura Sweeden and others raised it with the claimant (not the other way round) after they had been alerted to it by FH; given that this was the version of events which was presented by everyone other than the claimant.

65.6 It was reasonable for Mr Sherry to believe that the spreadsheet which the claimant had submitted to Mr Cunningham, and on which he relied particularly regarding one of his grounds of appeal, was created at the time that the issue was raised with him and had not been worked on him for any significant period prior to this, as the claimant indicated. This was consistent with the documentary and witness evidence referred to in paragraphs 52, 53 and 55 above. Was dismissal within the band of reasonable responses?

[66]I have the band of reasonable responses clearly in mind in reaching my decision. It is immaterial what decision I would have made or what other employers may have decided.

[67]On the evidence, I consider that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

[68]The claimant's conduct demonstrated that, regardless of the ultimate outcome, he had been dishonest about an issue of potentially serious impact. He had decided to conceal it and had attempted to persuade a more junior colleague to do the same. This conduct appeared in direct conflict with the aims, objectives and content of the conduct rules set out in paragraph 11 above.

[69]The claimant had a role of significant seniority, responsibility and experience. The respondent was a large, regulated financial institution with a specific reputation to uphold. As such, I accept that trust had been completely broken between the claimant and respondent, especially as the claimant continued to deny responsibility and therefore, provided no indication that he would behave differently in future.

[70]As such, I cannot find that no reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant.

[71]I find, therefore, that the claimant was fairly dismissed by the respondent within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and his claim of unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed. Approved by