Employment Judge Muzaffer ruled that Kate Carlsen’s challenge of an order to share ‘misleading’ information with a client didn’t amount to gross misconduct
Carlsen was employed at Nottingham-based firm Architecture North between May 2024 and April 2025.
She told the tribunal that on 25 April last year, an argument ensued with the company director, Lewis North – who is a serving RIBA Council member – after she refused a request to ‘lie’ to a client seeking a project update.
She said that the work had not been finished by a third-party render artist as expected and proposed informing the client that the remaining renders would be delayed.
Carlsen said North, who is not a registered architect, instructed her to tell the client that the work was complete. She responded that doing so would be ‘a lie’ because the client had paid for further work.
She told the tribunal that North told her ‘to do as he, as the boss, was asking her to do’. After refusing once again, the argument became heated.
As part of her evidence, Carlsen told the hearing that she had said she would quit the company if North continued speaking in the way he was doing, but denied that she resigned.
She said that North left the office. In the afternoon, she sent him a WhatsApp message about the incident.
‘Hey, that was really not a fun morning, for either of us,’ ran Carlsen’s text to North. ‘I’m sorry it escalated so much and I regret it becoming so tense. I do enjoy working at [Architecture North] and have learnt so much. I apologise for my part in it, and I hope we can move on from it.’
Later that afternoon, Carlsen received an email from North to inform her that she was being dismissed with immediate effect for breach of contract.
On 6 May 2025, she received a ‘final response’ email explaining that her employment had been terminated for ‘gross misconduct’.
The email said: ‘Your conduct on the 25 April was based on insubordination and unacceptable conduct within the workplace, and your WhatsApp message demonstrates your acknowledgment of the inappropriate behaviour, and supports our position, that your conduct warranted immediate termination.
‘Prior informal warnings had already been issued, including verbal feedback following inappropriate challenges to management authority.’
Carlsen told the tribunal that she had never been the subject of previous disciplinary action at the company.
In his account of the events of the argument, North told the tribunal that he had instructed Carlsen to undertake some drawings and to inform the client that the updated renders would be issued to them at a later date.
He stated that Carlsen refused to follow the instruction and instead indicated that she wanted to inform the client that the internal rendering would be completed by the end of the day, which North stated would have been misleading.
He claimed that Carlsen raised her voice, made comments regarding her pay and attempted to involve other employees in the disagreement. He also stated that Carlsen said that she was quitting the business, which he accepted as her verbal resignation.
Judge Muzaffer found Carlsen ‘a credible witness’ who gave ‘a clear and consistent account of the events of 25 April 2025’.
In contrast, he considered parts of North’s evidence ‘not wholly consistent or accurate’.
‘I accept that, during the argument, [Carlsen] stated that she would resign if Lewis North continued to speak to her in what she perceived to be an inappropriate manner,’ Judge Muzaffer said in his judgment, published on 6 February.
‘However, I do not accept the evidence of Lewis North that she did resign or that he accepted her verbal resignation during the argument. If [Carlsen] had resigned verbally, then I find that there would have been no reason for Lewis North to later request that an email be sent to her notifying her of her dismissal.
‘In addition, if [Carlsen] had resigned, that would have been given as the cause of the termination of her employment in the email of 6 May 2025.’
Judge Muzaffer said there was no record supporting North’s claim that Carlsen had been the subject of previous disciplinary action.
He accepted that Carlsen had refused to send a message to the client in the terms requested by North.
‘Whilst I accept that an argument took place, it is not asserted that either party swore or used inappropriate language during that argument. I accept that the claimant believed that she was being asked to send a message that was misleading.
‘The fact that Lewis North then suggested an alternative message which was more consistent with the approach that [Carlsen] was advocating supports a finding that [her] initial refusal to send the message was not unreasonable.’
Architecture North was ordered to pay Carlsen £1,696.11, equating to three weeks’ pay plus 15 per cent ACAS uplift. Her holiday pay claim failed.
In a statement sent to the AJ by Architecture North, the practice said it acknowledged the decision and had carefully reviewed the judgment. A spokesperson said: ‘This matter has now concluded; we do not intend to comment further on the specifics of the case.
‘We remain committed to maintaining high professional standards across all areas of our practice, including employment processes, regulatory compliance, and the protection of our intellectual property. Where necessary, we address such matters through the appropriate professional and legal channels.
‘Our focus continues to be on delivering quality architectural services to our clients and contributing positively to the profession.’
Extract from the Employment Tribunal decision:
It is agreed that, at some stage in the morning of that date, a message was received from a client requesting an update on work that had been commissioned. The claimant stated that the work had not been completed by a third-party renderer as expected. She stated that she suggested that they complete the work that they were able to do and explain to the client that there would be a delay in providing them with the renders. She stated that Lewis North asked her to tell the client that they (the client) had already received everything and that nothing was outstanding.The claimant informed Lewis North that it would be a lie to tell this to the client as the client had paid for further work. She stated that Lewis North told her to do as he, as the boss, was asking her to do. The claimant stated that, when she again refused to tell a lie, an argument escalated between herself and Lewis North.
I accept that, during the argument, the claimant stated that she would resign if Lewis North continued to speak to her in what she perceived to be an inappropriate manner. However, I do not accept the evidence of Lewis North that she did resign or that he accepted her verbal resignation during the argument. If the claimant had resigned verbally, then I find that there would have been no reason for Lewis North to later request that an email be sent to her notifying her of her dismissal. In addition, if the claimant had resigned, that would have been given as the cause of the termination of her employment in the email of 6 May 2025.
Whilst I accept that an argument took place, it is not asserted that either party swore or used inappropriate language during that argument. I accept that the claimant believed that she was being asked to send a message that was misleading. The fact that Lewis North then suggested an alternative message which was more consistent with the approach that the claimant was advocating supports a finding that the claimant’s initial refusal to send the message was not unreasonable.