Homeease Care Solutions Ltd

Case Summary

Mr Bennett was employed as Operations Director of a small family-run care company. He was dismissed following an investigation into allegations of misappropriation of funds using a company credit card and insubordination. Employment Judge George found the dismissal unfair because the investigation process was outside the range of reasonable responses, particularly because the claimant was not given access to key evidence relied upon by the decision-makers before the disciplinary hearing.

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation process fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The claimant was not provided with detailed evidence of the alleged misappropriation (schedules of payments and accountants' analysis) that the decision-makers relied upon before or during the disciplinary hearing. Additionally, the allegation of insubordination relating to the claimant's challenge to his suspension was not included in the investigation conclusions or set out in writing in advance, denying him reasonable opportunity to respond.

• •Whether claimant was unfairly dismissed on grounds of alleged misconduct including theft, fraud, and insubordination
• •Whether investigation and disciplinary process complied with reasonable responses test
• •Adequacy of disclosure of evidence to claimant during investigation and disciplinary proceedings
• •Whether management acted in bad faith due to internal power dispute between directors
• •Which written contract governed the employment relationship

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr C Bennett Respondent: Homeease Care Solutions Limited Heard at: Reading Employment Tribunal On: 26 to 28 January 2026 Before: Employment Judge George Representation Claimant: Self representing Respondent: Mr S Maini-Thompson, counsel JUDGMENT 1. The claimant was at the time of his dismissal employed as Operations Director on a salary of £28,000 gross per annum and the written contract at page 256 of the hearing file genuinely represented the terms of employment of the claimant by the respondent. 2. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. 3. All remaining issues in the case will be considered at a remedy hearing on 7 September 2026. REASONS 1. In this hearing I hope the benefit of a joint hearing file. This contained 268 pages. On Day one the respondent applied to add two pages which were an email from the claimant to the respondent’s director which was the subject of the charge of insubordination that she upheld. I granted the application for reasons which were given orally. Written reasons for that decision will not be provided unless one of the parties makes a written request within 14 days of the date on which this judgment is sent to them. 2. The parties had exchanged witness statements. Statements for the claimant and Neville Bennett - the claimant’s father and managing director of the respondent – were sent as witnesses for the claimant. Ms Pratt Bennett and Ms Laszczewska signed witness statements relied on by the respondent. Shortly before the hearing, the claimant wrote to ask if Mr Bennett senior could give evidence from Zimbabwe by video but that state has not given general 2 permission for individuals to give evidence by video in the employment tribunal of England and Wales. No specific permission for Mr Bennet senior to give evidence on this occasion has been ob…