GO AD-FREE. Get 2 Months Digital Subscription for ONLY £1! Use code 2FOR1
GET STARTEDMore on KentOnline
GO AD-FREE. Get 2 Months Digital Subscription for ONLY £1! Use code 2FOR1
GET STARTEDMore on KentOnline
An oil trader sacked after his bosses claimed he was too hungover to attend meetings has lost his damages claim for wrongful dismissal.
Andrew Kearns, of Marshall Road, Rainham, took Glencore to court - claiming he was a scapegoat for huge losses.
He was dismissed for alleged serious misconduct after a business trip to Singapore in October 2010.
Glencore, one of the world’s biggest companies, claimed he failed to attend critical meetings in what was the latest in a string of incidents. The company also claimed they had offered him help for his drinking.
Mr Kearns denied there were any business meetings later that day which required his attendance.
He accepted he had been drinking but was not drunk. Mr Kearns, who worked there from January 2009 to October 2010, claimed he was told to take colleagues out for drinks as part of his job.
Judge Richard Seymour QC described the claim as "ludicrous" and said it should never have come to court.
A cost order was made against Mr Kearns, with an interim payment due of £150,000, at London's High Court.
It was earlier ruled that Mr Kearns could not claim back shares worth more than £600,000.
This left the wrongful dismissal element, which was worth a maximum of £12,000.
Glencore's counsel, Jonathan Cohen, said Mr Kearns was "dishonest in his evidence" and "sought to deny the inevitable".
Speaking after the verdict, Mr Kearns said he would consider his options, and maintains he was a fall guy.
"I'm disappointed naturally, the judge adopted a very legalistic approach as to whether or not I was wrongfully dismissed.
"Throughout the trial the judge asserted he was not concerned about what other possible reasons lay behind my dismissal, nor whether the reasons for my dismissal were fair, but rather if Glencore had a right to dismiss me without warning nor notice, contractually.
"I consider the judgement harsh given the surrounding context heard during proceedings and the clearly hostile feelings certain people within Glencore held for me being proven in pre-trial evidence disclosure."
