Ex-Connells chief wins fiery age discrimination and unfair dismissal cases – Mortgage Strategy

The former chief executive of Connells has won claims for age discrimination and unfair dismissal after an employment tribunal ruled he was treated unlawfully when he left the company after 33 years.

David Livesey, who joined Connells in 1990 and became chief executive in 2008, resigned in December 2023 after saying his relationship with senior figures at parent company Skipton Group had broken down.

A subsequent fiery employment tribunal revealed a clash of personalities at the two companies.

The Bury St Edmunds employment tribunal ruled on 29 June that Connells unfairly handled Livesey’s departure and later discriminated against him because of his age.

Livesey originally claimed he had been bullied by Skipton Group chief executive Stuart Haire as part of a campaign to force him out.

The tribunal did not accept that there had been an organised bullying campaign against Livesey. However, it found that the way Connells treated him afterwards seriously damaged the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee.

The judges said the company tried to “re-write history” by claiming Livesey had given notice to leave in June 2023. They found he had only said he planned to retire while discussions about his departure were still taking place.

A letter sent to him in November 2023 backdated his 12-month notice period to June. The tribunal called this “a serious breach of contract” and described it as “a disingenuous document”.

The tribunal also found Connells acted wrongly by effectively putting Livesey on garden leave, removing him as a company director without warning or agreement, and inviting him to a meeting when those decisions had already been made.

It said: “As a long standing and successful CEO, it is surprising that the claimant should have been treated in this way at board level.”

The tribunal ruled that these actions broke the trust and confidence that should exist between an employer and employee and amounted to constructive unfair dismissal.

It also found that Livesey had been discriminated against because of his age.

Part of the case centred on Connells’ long-term incentive plan (LTIP), known as the Condor 3 scheme. The scheme rewarded senior executives with shares in the business.

Livesey had paid £420,000 for his shares in the LTIP. After he left, however, he was classed as a ‘bad leaver’.

That meant his 4.636 shares were transferred back to Skipton and he received a cheque for just 46p in return. The tribunal heard this was carried out as part of an internal process known as ‘Project Chester’.

The tribunal found that treating Livesey as a bad leaver was age discrimination because another executive in a comparable position had been treated more favourably without a proper reason.

It also found that Skipton played a central role in the decision to refuse Livesey what it described as a ‘clean break’ under the Condor 3 scheme.

Although the tribunal rejected the claim that there had been a campaign of bullying, it found relations between Connells and Skipton had become increasingly strained after changes in senior management.

It referred to a WhatsApp message in which Haire told Skipton chair Gwyneth Burr they “needed to keep an eye on them” when discussing Connells’ management.

The tribunal also heard about angry messages sent by Livesey before the dispute. In one message in 2022, he described Skipton executives as “nincompoops”, called its non-executive directors a “bunch of weapongrade t*ssers”, and said he “wouldn’t p*ss on the Skipton NEDs if they were on fire”.

Despite that background, the tribunal ruled in Livesey’s favour on both age discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal.

Any damages will be decided at a later date.

A Skipton spokeperson said: “We are pleased that all bullying claims were decisively rejected by the tribunal. We take our workplace culture very seriously and have strict policies and procedures that govern behaviours at work. We are disappointed by the tribunal’s full decision which we will review carefully.”

Livesey said: “My case is about principle – if concerned people don’t take a stand, good businesses are damaged.”