Dispute leaves ex-coffee shop director far from 'dandy'

Tuesday 16 October 2018

A former Director of Dandy coffee shop, who alleges that she was forced out of the business by her fellow partners, has lost her case for unfair dismissal compensation due to a technicality in the law that means she wasn’t an ‘employee’.

Hannah Harvey’s case was dropped after the Employment Tribunal found that, as a shareholder in the business, she was technically 'self-employed'.

The tribunal heard claims that Miss Harvey was forced out of the business and blocked from all its accounts after her working relationship with another Director, Daniel Houzé, had deteriorated to such an extent that they would only correspond via email or text message rather than talking face-to-face.

Pictured: Dandy coffee shop was at the centre of this directorial dispute, but the Tribunal eventually dismissed Miss Harvey's claim/ (Robbie Dark)

The two Directors reached an impasse when neither of them wanted to liquidate their share in the business and decided to continue trying to improve their working relationship. 

It seems that part of their difficulties was they disagreed about whether or not to expand the business by opening a second coffee shop. 

Despite their best efforts, the pair could not resolve their differences and the Tribunal heard that Miss Harvey’s access to the business's bank accounts was blocked. A few days later, Mr Houzé along with another of the company’s Directors, Jamie Hooker, wrote a letter to Miss Harvey telling her that she was fired. 

The Deputy Chairman of the Employment Tribunal, Advocate Ian Jones, found that by law, Miss Harvey was not an ‘employee’ of the business but rather had a different status as a stakeholder and therefore couldn’t claim either unfair or wrongful dismissal.

Pictured: Deputy Chairman of the Employment Tribunal, Advocate Ian Jones, made his conclusions in this claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal. (Preston Legal)

Mr Houzé and Mr Hooker argued that Miss Harvey was dismissed for gross misconduct as they were concerned about “over-spend” on the new premises and that she was making decisions about the business without consulting them. 

In his judgement, Advocate Jones conceded “that Miss Harvey consistently failed… to advise her fellow directors of what was going on.”

However, he also wrote: “The irony, that Miss Harvey is accused of making decisions without consulting either Mr Hooker or Mr Houzé, is palpable, in circumstances where the decision to dismiss Miss Harvey was made in her absence and only communicated to her by letter.”

In an unusual move, the Deputy Chairman left the door open for the claim to come back as an appeal by explaining that the Tribunal would have ruled in Miss Harvey’s favour if her ‘employee’ status could be proven.

Advocate Jones also said that, were Miss Harvey proved to be an employee of the business, the Tribunal would have found her to have been both unfairly and wrongfully dismissed from the business, which means that she was fired from the business without due cause and the way in which she was dismissed did not follow the proper process.

Were the Tribunal wrong about Miss Harvey’s status, Advocate Jones said that they would have awarded her £6,700 in compensation.