By James Lenihan, Regional Employment Rights Manager - Member (Partner) & Jazmeer Jackson, Employment Rights Lawyer

Mr J Alom v The Financial Conduct Authority 

Background 

Mr Alom was summarily dismissed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in April 2021 for misconduct after it concluded he had sent an anonymous, threatening email to a colleague and breached confidentiality in another. He denied sending the first email and argued his dismissal and unsuccessful internal appeal were acts of race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. He also claimed that the investigation and disciplinary process—particularly the FCA’s search of his work computer (“Operation Orion”)—were unfair and breached his Article 8 right to privacy. 

Key Issues 

Failure to Provide Interview Transcripts 

Mr Alom argued that the dismissal was unfair because he was not given transcripts of the complainant’s investigation interviews. The EAT held the tribunal was entitled to find that he had enough information about the allegations to defend himself, as the disciplinary charges were limited to two specific emails and the investigating and dismissing officers had not relied on unseen material. 

Operation Orion and Article 8 Rights 

He also argued that the FCA’s computer search was disproportionate and rendered his dismissal unfair. While the tribunal had mistakenly found he was told of the search in advance, the EAT held the error was immaterial because the FCA did not rely on the search results in deciding to dismiss him. 

Bias and Predetermination 

The EAT rejected claims that a “script” prepared for the disciplinary chair showed the outcome had been predetermined. The tribunal was entitled to accept evidence that the dismissing officer made his own decision after hearing Mr Alom’s representations. 

Delay in Tribunal’s Decision 

Although the tribunal’s written reasons were delayed by nine months, the EAT held this did not show the claimant had been denied a fair hearing. The decision remained detailed and thorough. 

Outcome 

The EAT dismissed Mr Alom’s appeal. It held the tribunal was entitled to find that the FCA had acted reasonably in dismissing him for misconduct and that his claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation failed. 

Why This Matters 

This case underlines that disciplinary processes will not automatically be rendered unfair by procedural imperfections, such as delayed judgments or missing interview transcripts, where the employee still had sufficient information to respond to allegations. It also highlights that privacy arguments under Article 8 will only affect fairness where the employer relies on the impugned material in reaching its decision.