Alom v Financial Conduct Authority [2025] EAT 138

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) confirmed that the Claimant’s summary dismissal was not procedurally unfair despite procedural challenges, including non-disclosure of investigation interview transcripts, concerns about HR involvement in the disciplinary process, and evidence obtained via an overly broad search of the Claimant's work computer.

The Claimant was summarily dismissed by the Respondent for gross misconduct following two incidents: (1) an anonymous email he sent to a female colleague which was found to be harassing in nature, and (2) a breach of confidentiality relating to disclosure of an internal investigation report.

The Claimant brought claims in the ET alleging unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation, all of which were dismissed. He appealed to the EAT on the grounds that the ET should have found his dismissal procedurally unfair because:

• the Respondent did not provide him with transcripts of the investigative interviews with the female colleague;

• his line manager used a “script” prepared by HR during the disciplinary hearing, meaning the dismissal was predetermined; and

• a disproportionate forensic search was carried out on his work computer which breached his Article 8 ECHR rights.

The EAT dismissed the appeal, concluding that the dismissal was fair for the following reasons:

• Non-disclosure of the interview transcripts did not render the dismissal procedurally unfair, given that the Claimant was provided with sufficient information to defend himself against the charges of gross misconduct.

• The use of a “script” did not prejudge the outcome of the disciplinary process, as the Claimant’s line manager had come to his own conclusions after hearing the Claimant’s representations.

• Whilst the computer search may have been disproportionate, this did not affect the fairness of the dismissal, since the Respondent did not rely on the search in support of their decision to dismiss.

This case provides employers with clarity on the boundaries of procedural fairness in misconduct dismissals, particularly where employees challenge the process on multiple grounds. This decision confirms that tribunals will focus on whether the employee had sufficient information to respond meaningfully to the disciplinary allegations, rather than whether each piece of investigatory material was disclosed.

The decision also addresses the role of HR in disciplinary processes, serving as a reminder that whilst HR scripts and guidance materials are common practice, such materials must not appear to dictate outcomes and decision-makers must retain genuine autonomy.

Finally, from a privacy perspective, the decision establishes that workplace monitoring or searches that may engage Article 8 ECHR rights will not necessarily undermine a dismissal if the results are not relied upon in the decision-making process. This provides employers with some reassurance when conducting workplace investigations, though they should remain mindful of employees' privacy rights.