A recent inquest into the death of a Treasury employee has prompted renewed discussion about workplace investigations, employee wellbeing and the importance of balancing robust internal procedures with appropriate welfare considerations.
Whilst the circumstances of the case are highly fact-specific, they provide a useful reminder of the legal and practical issues that can arise when allegations of misconduct are raised and the importance of ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly, sensitively and in accordance with established procedures.
Background
The case concerned a 26-year-old Treasury employee employed as a personal assistant to a Treasury director. On 19 May 2025, the employee attended what they believed to be a routine one-to-one meeting with their line manager. However, a more senior manager was also present.
During the meeting, the employee was informed that an anonymous complaint had been made alleging confidential information relating to colleagues had been disclosed. The allegation centred on the employee’s access to their line manager’s email inbox and diary. The employee was informed that this access would be restricted pending a formal investigation and denied the allegations in full.
The employee had not been given advance notice of the purpose of the meeting or the attendance of the senior manager. During the meeting, the employee repeatedly asked whether the allegations could result in dismissal and requested that a close colleague be permitted to attend. Those requests were refused and management explained that it was not possible to predict the outcome of any future investigation.
Evidence given by the managers in attendance described the employee as visibly distressed throughout the meeting. Following the meeting, the employee messaged a friend stating, “I am going to be fired”. The friend subsequently met with the employee and sought to provide reassurance to them.
Despite those reassurances, the employee remained concerned about both the potential loss of employment and the reputational consequences of the allegations. This arose against the backdrop of an otherwise positive employment history. The employee had worked for the Treasury for almost three years, had an exemplary record, was well regarded by colleagues and had been identified for promotion, although this had not yet been communicated.
Tragically, the employee died the following day, and a subsequent inquest examined the circumstances surrounding the death. Notably, the coroner did not criticise the Treasury’s disciplinary policy, which was found to be consistent with the ACAS Code of Practice. Rather, the criticism focused on the way the process had been applied in practice.
The coroner heard evidence that, before any formal process was commenced, a decision had already been taken to restrict the employee’s access to the director’s email inbox and diary pending further investigation.
Evidence was also heard that, despite repeatedly expressing concerns about losing their job, the employee was not informed that dismissal was considered unlikely. This was significant because the Treasury’s disciplinary policy indicated that, had the allegations been substantiated, the likely outcome would have been a written warning rather than dismissal.
Further concerns were raised regarding the absence of any welfare assessment or safeguarding measures despite multiple accounts describing the employee as “shocked, distressed, overwhelmed and crying” during the discussion.
The coroner ultimately concluded that the meeting, and the way it was conducted, had materially contributed to the employee’s death.
Practical tips for employers
Whilst the facts of this case are unusual and tragic, caution should be exercised before drawing wider conclusions about workplace investigations. The coroner did not criticise the Treasury’s disciplinary policy itself, nor does the case establish any general legal obligation to permit accompaniment at investigatory meetings or provide advance notice of every workplace concern.
Instead, the decision highlights the importance of applying procedures consistently and remaining mindful of employee welfare when managing sensitive matters. Employers may wish to consider whether employees are given sufficient information to understand the concerns being raised, whether support mechanisms are available where an employee becomes visibly distressed and whether managers are adequately trained to balance investigatory requirements with welfare considerations.
The case also highlights the importance of clear communication. Employers will rarely be able to determine likely outcomes before an investigation has concluded and may be reluctant to provide assurances regarding potential disciplinary sanctions. The key lesson is therefore less about predicting outcomes and more about ensuring employees understand the process being followed and what can realistically be expected as it progresses.
Ultimately, the coroner’s findings turned on the particular facts of the case. No new legal obligations were created. Rather, the decision serves as a reminder that procedural compliance, managerial judgement and employee wellbeing considerations should all form part of an employer’s approach to workplace investigations.
How we can help
This case comes at a time when ACAS is consulting on revisions to its Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, meaning employers should remain alert to evolving best practice expectations and the potential impact that future changes may have on workplace investigations and disciplinary processes.
With the forthcoming introduction of day-one unfair dismissal rights expected to increase the number of employees able to challenge dismissal decisions, employers should ensure that disciplinary and investigatory processes are both procedurally robust and applied consistently in practice. In addition, unreasonable failures to comply with the ACAS Code can result in Employment Tribunal awards being increased by up to 25%, further increasing the risks associated with poorly managed processes.
Our employment team can assist your organisation by:
- reviewing and updating disciplinary, grievance and investigation policies and procedures;
- auditing existing workplace investigation practices to identify potential legal and employee relations risks;
- advising on complex disciplinary and misconduct matters, including allegations involving confidentiality, trust and confidence and whistleblowing concerns;
- undertaking independent investigations where an impartial investigator is required; and
- helping prepare your organisation for the upcoming employment law reforms, including changes arising from the Employment Rights Act 2025 and any revisions to the ACAS Code of Practice.
We also have an upcoming free webinar on 23 September 2026 on the incoming changes relating to sexual harassment law. This practical webinar will explore the following:
- what the upcoming changes to the law on sexual harassment are;
- how your organisation can prepare for the changes;
- how to handle complaints, grievances and disciplinary issues arising from sexual harassment related allegations; and
- practical HR solutions to manage risk and support managers effectively.
Sign up here to secure your place.
