AN American businessman who was dismissed by his US bosses after his wife bought a competitor company was sacked fairly, an employment appeal tribunal has confirmed.

Oregon-based Accent Optical Technologies Inc, known as Accent Inc, acted properly in instantly dismissing Rajan Kaul, Judge Reid said in a written judgment following the hearing in London.

Rajan Kaul, vice-president and general manager of Accent Inc, based at the UK subsidiary, Accent Optical Technologies, York, until his dismissal in September 2003, had appealed against an employment tribunal decision in Hull which rejected his claim of unfair dismissal.

Accent Inc, which travelled to the UK for the original hearing together with licensed private investigator Edward Bayer, was advised by the employment department of York-based commercial lawyers Denison Till.

Accent Optical Technologies is a specialist manufacturer in the semi-conducting industry. Early in 2003, the US parent company asked Mr Kaul to research whether another US-owned, US-based, company, JMAR Precision Systems Limited, operating in the same sector, was worth acquiring. He replied that, in his view, it was not.

The tribunal heard that Mr Kaul's stay in England was unhappy. His wife did not like living in York and had returned to the US with his family. He was also dissatisfied and wished to leave. He had tried to negotiate an exit package with his US managers.

Soon after, Mr Kaul's US managers received an anonymous letter tipping them off that Mr Kaul's wife and father-in-law had bought JMAR Precision Systems on July 18, 2003.

Mr Kaul was instantly dismissed and later inquiries revealed that the allegations were well founded.

Brian Harrington, head of employment law at Denison Till, acting for Accent Inc, said that a key element of the case was that Accent Inc believed that Mr Kaul was employed on a US employment contract which either party could terminate "at will" when he was, in fact, subject to English law through working in the UK.

The tribunal, he said, had to decide whether, in these circumstances, Mr Kaul's instant dismissal was justified.

The original tribunal had been told that Edward Bayer had obtained video film of Mr Kaul in California attending work at the competitor company.

Mr Kaul's solicitors, Irwin Mitchell, said they had lodged an appeal, at the Appeal Court, London.

Updated: 12:09 Wednesday, February 09, 2005