HFW acted for David Livesey, the former CEO of Connells, Britain’s largest estate agency in his successful age discrimination, constructive and unfair dismissal claims

Global law firm HFW successfully represented David Livesey, the former Chief Executive of Connells, in his age discrimination, constructive and unfair dismissal Employment Tribunal claims against Connells and its owner Skipton Building Society.

Mr Livesey led Connells for 16 years before resigning in 2023 “after the final straw ” of retrospectively being placed on garden leave without having given or received written notice and being forced to accept a lesser notice period than his contractual notice period.

The direct age discrimination claim was upheld on the grounds that Mr Livesey was not compensated for the loss of his shareholdings in the company’s long term investment scheme, being paid only 46p following his constructive dismissal having paid £420,000 for those company shares – with a younger colleague in the same/similar circumstances being paid £1.6m for his shares through the same investment scheme, despite investing a smaller stake.

The employment tribunal also found that Mr Livesey was constructively and unfairly dismissed through “surprising and unreasonable” actions from Connells. Mr Livesey was removed from his position earlier than agreed, with Skipton retrospectively framing his retirement announcement as formal notice under his employment contract and removing him as a director without his knowledge or consent. This was described by the Employment Tribunal as “disingenuous”.

The HFW team was led by Employment Partner Michelle Chance, with support from Associate Lydia Cammiade. Judy Stone KC of 11KBW represented Mr Livesey in the employment tribunal.  

Michelle Chance, Partner, HFW:

“We are delighted to have supported David, a man of great principle and integrity in achieving this significant “David v Goliath” victory, with the ruling confirming the unlawful age discrimination and unfair treatment to which he was subjected.

 This decision demonstrates that employers cannot simply attempt to rewrite history and sidestep their express and implied contractual obligations to senior employees approaching the end of their professional career and treat them less favourably than their younger colleagues and in breach of their duty of trust and confidence which they owe them.”