5 min read

Misconduct dismissal for two inappropriate emails not procedurally unfair

Read more

By Sara Meyer, Ceri Fuller & Hilary Larter

|

Published 13 October 2025

Overview

In this case, the EAT held that failure to provide an employee with transcripts of investigation interviews, use of a prepared 'script' at a disciplinary hearing, and an overly broad search of the employee's work computer did not render his misconduct dismissal procedurally unfair.

 

Facts

Mr Alom was employed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) until his dismissal for gross misconduct in April 2021, for sending two inappropriate emails.

The first email was an extremely hostile message that was sent anonymously to Ms Shaukat, a female colleague with whom Mr Alom had previously formed a friendship. That friendship had involved many email exchanges and Mr Alom had given Ms Shaukat gifts on several occasions. On 23 January 2020, Mr Alom and Ms Shaukat had an argument in the canteen, during which Ms Shaukat accused Mr Alom of stalking her. That evening, Ms Shaukat received the anonymous email, which referenced her stalking allegations and other details that would likely only be known to her and Mr Alom. When Ms Shaukat raised the anonymous email and other concerns about Mr Alom to HR, an investigation was conducted. Mr Alom denied sending the anonymous email. Not all of Ms Shaukat's complaints were upheld. However, the investigation did conclude that Mr Alom had sent the anonymous email and that this amounted to harassment, which was a potential breach of the FCA's Equal Opportunities and Respect at Work Policy. It also made various recommendations, such as that Mr Alom should not contact Ms Shaukat unless absolutely necessary in a work context, and should not give her any further gifts. The investigation report was sent to Mr Alom on 27 January 2021.

The second email was sent by Mr Alom on 27 January 2021 to his own and Ms Shaukat's line managers. It referred to the outcome of a complaint Mr Alom had made against Ms Shaukat, which had not been upheld. It also attached a copy of one of the recommendations from that outcome report. The FCA considered that Mr Alom's disclosure of that information to the line managers amounted to a breach of confidentiality.

On 18 March 2021, Mr Alom was invited to a disciplinary hearing to consider allegations of harassment in relation to the first email and breach of confidentiality in relation to the second. Following the disciplinary hearing, Mr Alom was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 1 April 2021. His internal appeal was unsuccessful.

An employment tribunal dismissed Mr Alom's unfair dismissal claim. He appealed to the EAT, arguing that the tribunal should have found his dismissal procedurally unfair due to:

  • The FCA's failure to provide him with transcripts of Ms Shaukat's investigation interviews
  • The fact that the manager at his disciplinary hearing had used a script prepared by HR, which indicated that the outcome of the process was predetermined
  • A disproportionate search of his work computer, which infringed his right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

 

EAT decision

The EAT dismissed Mr Alom's appeal.

In respect of the interview transcripts, the EAT noted that fairness requires that an employee is provided with sufficient information about the alleged conduct to enable them to respond to the charges. Here, the original investigation had considered various allegations raised by Ms Shaukat, but the disciplinary charges were limited to the two emails. Mr Alom was provided with sufficient information to defend himself against those charges.

The script for the disciplinary hearing had been prepared by HR. It provided an agenda and set out points that needed to be raised. The EAT acknowledged that the framing of the part of the script concerning the anonymous email could be viewed as inappropriate because it suggested what view the disciplinary manager should put forward. However, the script also provided for the manager to seek Mr Alom's view on these issues. Indeed, it was clear from the tribunal's judgment that the manager had come to his own view, taking into account Mr Alom's responses. The overall script did not presume or prejudge the outcome of the disciplinary process.

The search of Mr Alom's work computer was not confined to an attempt to identify the author of the anonymous email, but also sought details of Mr Alom's relationship with Ms Shaukat. An infringement of the Article 8 right to privacy is potentially relevant to the fairness of dismissal. However, the FCA did not rely on the search of Mr Alom's work computer in support of the disciplinary allegations or the decision to dismiss. Accordingly, even if the search did amount to a disproportionate interference with Mr Alom's Article 8 right, this did not render the dismissal unfair.

 

What does this mean for employers?

The decision in this case helpfully confirms that a failure to provide copies of investigation interviews to an employee accused of misconduct will not necessarily undermine the fairness of a dismissal process. As the EAT acknowledged, what an employee must be given in order to satisfy the requirements of fairness will depend on the facts of the particular case. However, the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures does indicate that it is usually appropriate to provide written evidence and that this "may" include witness statements, so challenges on this basis are unsurprising.

It is not uncommon for HR to prepare scripts to assist the disciplinary manager at a hearing, so the EAT's acceptance of this practice is reassuring. It is important to ensure, however, that any such script does not overreach, provides for the manager to invite the employee's comments and does not indicate that the outcome of the process has been predetermined in any way. In this case the manager was able to show the decision was theirs. However, had the script said less, evidence on the extent to which HR had led the manager would not have been required.

The overly broad search of the employee's work computer was found not to impact the fairness of the dismissal in this case. However, to minimise risk, employers should limit any monitoring of employees to what is proportionate and necessary, and ensure they comply with data protection law requirements.

Alom v Financial Conduct Authority

Authors