Case Study: Pendino v BDS Audio Visual Limited

Case Study B: Pendino v BDS Audio Visual Limited

Overview:

In 2021 our client Mr Pendino brought a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal against BDS Audio Visual Limited, disputing his termination on 28 March 2019. The Respondent argued he resigned, but the Tribunal found he was dismissed due to dishonesty over a 2017 road traffic accident. While the dismissal had valid grounds, it was deemed procedurally unfair due to the Respondent’s failure to follow a fair process. The Tribunal also ruled that the Claimant was not provided with a written statement of employment terms. Mr Pendino was awarded £9,947.43 in compensation.

Initial Trial and Findings:

The case was heard at Cambridge CVP before Judge Bloom, who ruled that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The judgment was based on an analysis of the vague conversation between the Claimant and Mr Farburn on 28^th March 2019, where the Claimant offered to resign, but his words were not clear or explicit. Although the Respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, stemming from the Claimant’s dishonesty about the 2017 road traffic accident, the tribunal found that the dismissal process was unfair due to the Respondent’s failure to follow proper procedures. Key factors, such as the Respondent’s lack of a formal disciplinary process, contributed to the decision to award the Claimant £9,947.43.

Shaar Bridge Solicitors Intervention:

Upon being instructed by the Claimant, Shaar Bridge’s legal team, led by Jaffar Shah, reviewed the original dismissal file and identified several key issues with the Respondent’s handling of the case. These included:

1. Ambiguous Resignation: The Claimant’s unclear resignation offer left the Respondent’s acceptance in question.
2. Improper Dismissal Procedure: The Respondent dismissed the Claimant without following proper disciplinary processes as outlined in the ACAS Code of Practice.
3. Delayed Legal Action: The Respondent sought legal advice but failed to act promptly, causing confusion over the dismissal.
4. Lack of Disciplinary Action: The Respondent did not initiate formal disciplinary procedures regarding the Claimant’s dishonesty until after the dismissal.
5. Poor Communication: The Claimant was not properly informed about his dismissal, leading to uncertainty.
6. Inconsistent Reasons: The Respondent’s reasons for dismissal lacked consistency and formal support, which led the tribunal to find the dismissal unfair.

Trial:

In 2021, the case was heard in the High Court of Justice, with Mr Pendino was represented by Liam Varnam of Counsel. The trial was heard by Judge Bloom, who was highly critical of the Respondent’s legal team and their mishandling of the dismissal process. Judge Bloom stated that the Respondent’s actions demonstrated a clear failure to follow proper procedures, with a lack of clarity surrounding the Claimant’s resignation and a failure to implement a fair disciplinary process.

The judgment also criticised the Respondent for failing to communicate effectively with the Claimant, leaving him in a state of distress and confusion. The Court found that the reasons for dismissal were inconsistent and lacked formal support, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the dismissal was unfair. This resulted in substantial compensation being paid to Mr Pendino.

Conclusion:

Please see attached Judgment below: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60350ac0d3bf7f2656472e61/Mr_M_Pendino_v_BDS_Audio_Visual_Ltd__-_3322493-2019__-_Judgment.pdf