Editor's note: This brief was summarised by The Property AI Newsroom from a report by Mortgage Strategy. Read the original article for full details.
Ex-Connells CEO Wins Age Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal Tribunal
David Livesey, former chief executive of Connells, has won claims for age discrimination and unfair dismissal following a ruling by the Bury St Edmunds employment tribunal. The tribunal found that Livesey, who joined Connells in 1990 and became chief executive in 2008, was treated unlawfully when he left the company after 33 years of service.
Livesey resigned in December 2023, citing a breakdown in his relationship with senior figures at Connells’ parent company, Skipton Group. The tribunal, which described the proceedings as “fiery”, revealed a clash of personalities between the two companies. It ruled on 29 June that Connells unfairly handled Livesey’s departure and later discriminated against him because of his age.
The tribunal found that Connells attempted to “re-write history” by claiming Livesey had given notice to leave in June 2023, when he had only indicated plans to retire while discussions were ongoing. A letter sent to Livesey in November 2023 backdated his 12-month notice period to June, which the tribunal described as “a serious breach of contract” and “a disingenuous document”.
Connells was also found to have acted wrongly by putting Livesey on garden leave, removing him as a company director without warning or agreement, and inviting him to a meeting after those decisions had already been made. The tribunal stated that these actions broke the trust and confidence required between employer and employee, amounting to constructive unfair dismissal.
The case also involved Connells’ long-term incentive plan (LTIP), known as the Condor 3 scheme, which rewarded senior executives with shares. Livesey had paid £420,000 for his shares, but after his departure, he was classed as a ‘bad leaver’, resulting in his shares being transferred back to Skipton and receiving a cheque for 46p. The tribunal found this treatment to be age discrimination, as another executive in a similar position was treated more favourably without proper reason. Skipton was found to have played a central role in the decision to refuse Livesey a ‘clean break’ under the scheme.
Although the tribunal rejected Livesey’s claim of an organised bullying campaign, it noted strained relations between Connells and Skipton after changes in senior management. The tribunal also referenced messages exchanged between senior figures at both companies.
Damages in the case will be decided at a later date.
Source: Mortgage Strategy