Nick Kitaruth’s dismissal from OCS Security was ruled unfair due to miscommunication and poor dismissal practices, despite failing to work while in Cornwall.
A London employee, Nick Kitaruth, has successfully won a claim for unfair dismissal after being terminated from his position as a security manager at OCS Security, despite being found to have completed no work during a remote working arrangement. The case centres on events that took place from August 14 to August 17, 2023, when Kitaruth travelled approximately 200 miles to Cornwall to visit his parents.
The central London tribunal learned that Kitaruth had sought permission from his line manager, Craig Stride, to work from Cornwall. However, OCS Security contended that this arrangement had not been formally authorised. Complications arose when Kitaruth was called back to London for an in-person meeting, which he was unable to attend due to his location.
Employment judge Tamara Lewis, who presided over the case, expressed that while Kitaruth had indeed misled his managers by failing to perform any work during the specified period, there was also a belief on his part that he had received approval to work remotely. The judge indicated that this could be attributed to a possible miscommunication between Kitaruth and Stride. Lewis stated in her findings, “If Mr Stride had been interviewed formally before a decision to dismiss Mr Kitaruth was made, it would have shown how informal the arrangements were and that such a system always had the potential for misunderstanding.”
The judge also pointed out that it would have been standard practice for any reasonable employer to have formally interviewed the line manager involved prior to making a dismissal decision. Therefore, she concluded that the dismissal was deemed unfair.
Moreover, Judge Lewis raised concerns regarding the lengthy duration of the investigation into Kitaruth’s case, which took six weeks, and the appeal process that extended over a period of seven months, labelling it as “extremely poor practice.”
Despite the ruling in favour of Kitaruth, the tribunal did express reservations about whether he had engaged in any work during his time in Cornwall, leading to a stipulation that any compensation awarded would be reduced by 50%. “OCS dismissed Mr Kitaruth because it believed he had gone to Cornwall without authorisation… and that not only was this unauthorised working from home, but that the claimant had misled his managers and was not in fact working in that period,” Lewis noted.
The full extent of Kitaruth’s compensation will be determined in subsequent proceedings.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67c6dd11a0f0c95a498d2251/Nicholas_Kitaruth_v_OCS_Security_Limited_-_2202013-2024.pdf – This document provides details about the employment tribunal case involving Nicholas Kitaruth and OCS Security Limited, confirming the unfair dismissal ruling.
- https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/n-kitaruth-v-ocs-security-ltd-2202013-slash-2024 – This webpage lists the employment tribunal decision for N Kitaruth v OCS Security Ltd, supporting the claim of unfair dismissal.
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/07/london-security-boss-unfairly-sacked-for-wfh-in-cornwall/ – This news article reports on the unfair dismissal of a London security manager who worked from home in Cornwall, aligning with the details of Kitaruth’s case.
- https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions – This webpage provides access to employment tribunal decisions, which can include details about procedures and outcomes similar to Kitaruth’s case.
- https://www.acas.org.uk/working-life/working-from-home – This webpage from ACAS discusses working from home arrangements, which can help clarify the context of remote work policies relevant to Kitaruth’s situation.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative references specific dates in August 2023, indicating recent events. However, there is no explicit mention of the publication date, which could affect its freshness.
Quotes check
Score:
6
Notes:
Direct quotes from Judge Tamara Lewis are included, but without an original source or date. The quotes appear to be from a recent legal proceeding, but verification is needed.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a well-known publication. However, the reliability can vary depending on the topic and specific reporting.
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims about an unfair dismissal case are plausible and consistent with typical employment tribunal outcomes. The details provided align with common legal procedures.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative appears to be based on recent events and is generally plausible. While the source is reliable, the lack of specific dates for quotes and publication could affect its overall credibility.
