Workplace Investigations Solicitor London: Advice for Employers
Whether it involves misconduct, a grievance, harassment or a whistleblowing report, how you run the investigation shapes what you can do with the outcome. A flawed investigation can undo an otherwise fair dismissal, and mistakes made at this early stage are often the ones a tribunal focuses on. David advises employers on running investigations that hold up: the right investigator, a properly scoped terms of reference, and a process that treats the employee fairly without losing sight of the business's own position. Get advice before the investigation starts, not after the outcome is challenged.
of employment law
personally advised
top-ranked lawyer
from clients
WHERE FAIR DISMISSALS UNRAVEL...
A Flawed Investigation Can Undo an Otherwise Fair Dismissal
A dismissal can be procedurally unfair even where the underlying conduct was genuine, if the investigation behind it was inadequate. Tribunals look closely at whether the investigator was independent, whether the scope of the investigation was reasonable, and whether the employee had a fair opportunity to respond to the case against them before any decision was made.
Suspension is a common early misstep. It should normally be on full contractual pay, kept as brief as possible, and reviewed regularly. It should not be treated as disciplinary action, and an employer that suspends as a knee-jerk response may breach the implied term of trust and confidence, creating an additional legal risk alongside the underlying allegation.
David will tell you quickly whether your proposed scope, investigator and process are defensible, and where the specific risks sit before the first interview takes place.
36 Years Advising Employers on Workplace Investigations
David Greenhalgh has advised employers on misconduct, grievance, harassment and whistleblowing investigations for 36 years, from a first allegation involving a junior employee through to matters involving senior executives and board members where the outcome affects their whole career.
His advice is practical, not just a compliance checklist. David knows where investigations actually break down: scope that drifts beyond the original allegation, an investigator with a real or perceived conflict of interest, or evidence handled in a way that later looks selective. That experience shapes every recommendation he makes, including when to bring in an external investigator and when your own process is sound enough to run internally.
The investigations that fall apart later almost always had a problem from day one. Getting advice before you start costs far less than fixing it afterwards.
Hear how David approaches a settlement agreement.
A short introduction in plain English on what to expect from the process.
The Investigation Risks Most Often Avoided Through Early Advice
Choosing the right investigator
An external investigator may be appropriate where genuine impartiality cannot reasonably be achieved within the organisation. David advises on whether your case needs one, in line with ACAS guidance on conducting workplace investigations.
Scope and terms of reference
A terms of reference drafted too broadly or too narrowly is a common ground of later challenge. David reviews the scope before the investigation starts, so it matches the actual allegation.
Suspension handled correctly
David advises on whether suspension is justified at all, and where it is, ensures it is on full pay, kept brief, and reviewed rather than left open-ended.
The right to be accompanied
Employees have a statutory right under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 to be accompanied at qualifying disciplinary and grievance hearings by a colleague or trade union representative. There is no general statutory right to be accompanied at an investigatory meeting, although your own procedure may allow it. David also advises on the narrower circumstances where legal representation may need to be considered.
Evidence disclosed at the right time
The ACAS Code expects employers to give employees the evidence relied on ahead of any disciplinary hearing. David checks that disclosure is handled correctly, so the process cannot be challenged on that ground alone.
Consistent, well-documented findings
David reviews witness statements and evidence for consistency before an outcome is issued, so findings are ones the business can stand behind if challenged later.
A workable appeal process
Appeal windows and common grounds of appeal, including new evidence, procedural unfairness, a disproportionate sanction, concerns about bias, or disputed findings of fact, need to be considered as part of a fair process. David advises on handling an appeal so it does not reopen problems the original process should have caught.
Considering mediation where it fits
Where the working relationship is salvageable, mediation through ACAS, an in-house mediator, or an external provider can resolve matters without a full disciplinary hearing. David advises on when that route is worth considering.
Recent Workplace Investigation Outcomes
Case studies are anonymised. Past outcomes are not a guarantee of future results.
Send David Your Details for a Same-Day Response
Fill in the form below and we'll get back in touch with you.
No obligation. Your details are used only to respond to your enquiry.
Speak to David's team directly.
Completing the contact form is the fastest way to get support. Alternatively, you can reach us by phone:
020 3667 9935- Confidential same-day review of your investigation
- David will confirm the fee position with you before you proceed.
From First Call to Resolution
Initial call
David finds out the nature of the allegation, the stage you're at, and any deadlines already in play.
Response within hoursReview and advice
David reviews your proposed scope, investigator and evidence position, and flags what needs to change.
Same dayProcess support
David advises through interviews, evidence gathering, the outcome letter and any appeal, so the process stays defensible at every stage.
DaysSign-off
David helps you complete the investigation, document the outcome and address any remaining risks, or negotiate a resolution where that better serves the business.
ResolvedWhat Clients Say About Working With David
I would not hesitate to recommend David to anyone needing advice on employment law.
David gives clear, expert advice on all employment matters.
Very practical, honest and reliable. Very grateful to David.
Clear, considered, expert employment law advice from David Greenhalgh. Won't go anywhere else.
Workplace Investigations, Answered
The questions David is asked most often before clients pick up the phone.
View full FAQ →An internal investigation, run by your own HR team or a manager, is appropriate where impartiality within the organisation is not in doubt. An external investigator, whether independent or a solicitor, should be appointed where that impartiality cannot reasonably be assured, in line with ACAS guidance on conducting workplace investigations. David advises on which your situation calls for.
Suspension used as a knee-jerk response, rather than a considered and reviewed decision, can itself breach the implied term of trust and confidence, giving rise to a separate claim regardless of the outcome of the underlying investigation. Suspension should normally be on full contractual pay, kept as brief as possible, and reviewed.
There is no general statutory right to legal representation at an internal disciplinary hearing. The usual statutory right is to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. In limited cases, particularly where the internal process may have a decisive effect on the employee’s ability to continue in their profession, legal representation may need to be considered. David advises on when those circumstances arise and how to respond to a request.
There is no fixed statutory time limit. The ACAS Code expects employers to progress matters without unreasonable delay, while still allowing enough time for a thorough and fair investigation. The appropriate timeframe depends on factors such as the number of witnesses, the volume of evidence and the complexity of the allegations.
Common grounds include new evidence, procedural unfairness, a sanction that is disproportionate to the findings, concerns about bias, and disputed findings of fact. Building a process that can withstand challenge on these points from the outset reduces the risk of problems emerging at appeal or tribunal stage.