[2025] UKUT 221 (AAC)

Much of the Appellant’s case in relation to Findings 2 and 3 rely on his argument that the written notes of his informal conversation and interview with Home 2’s manager were unreliable and incomplete. We address this general point first.

The notes of the conversation and interview both end with the Appellant’s dated signature (and those of others present). There is no evidence that, as happened following the interview with Home 1’s manager, the Appellant was subsequently given an opportunity to confirm the notes’ accuracy.

The Appellant says that, before he was terminated as a member of Priory Group bank staff, he was not provided with copies of the written notes of the conversation and interview with Home 2’s manager. We accept his evidence in this respect. Had copies been provided, or the Appellant’s comments sought on the accuracy of the notes, we would have expected a paper trail (as there was for the Home 1 interview). Furthermore, the Home 2 management report of 14 December 2020 suggests that the Appellant’s only opportunity to put forward his case was in the informal conversation and interview (when describing the Appellant’s case, the report only mentions what he is reported to have said in the conversation and interview). That the Appellant was not given the opportunity to dispute the notes’ accuracy, after signing them ‘on the day’, is also consistent with the Appellant’s legal status as a member of bank staff (according to the management report, “in line with the bank worker policy, he is not entitled to be subject to a disciplinary procedure”).

We find that the Appellant must have read the notes made of the informal conversation and interview before signing them on the days that they were conducted. But we also (a) find that he was not given any subsequent opportunity, before his termination as a member of bank staff, to reflect on, and challenge, the accuracy of the notes, and (b) note that in the heat of the moment - the end of the conversation and interview – it is plausible that the Appellant would not have been as well placed to identify any inaccuracies as he would have been if sent the notes for comment after the conversation and interview. For this reason, we exercise a degree of caution before relying on the contents of these notes (what this caution entails is explained below).