Sherlock Holmes Museum manager who demanded £500K wins lawsuit

Sherlock Holmes Museum manager on £120,000-a-year sues owners who fired her when she demanded a £500,000 bonus after splitting from the tourist attraction’s female director

• Honoria Cartlidge successfully sued the museum for unfair dismissal
• The senior manager also won claims of unlawful deduction of holiday pay 

A senior manager earning six figures successfully sued the Sherlock Holmes Museum after she was fired when she demanded a £500,000 bonus.

Honoria Cartlidge, who was on a £120,000 salary, was fired from the family-run museum on Baker Street, London after she became embroiled in a bitter money row with its female director when their long-term relationship broke down.

Ms Cartlidge‘s six year relationship with director Laura Von Ehrenstien had already broken down over money disputes – with the businesswoman claiming she was too ‘money-orientated’.

The break-up was so bitter Ms Von Ehrenstien went to her ex-partner’s flat and stole back the dog her family had given her five years before, an employment tribunal heard. Ms Cartlidge was left upset at the dog theft and a tribunal branded Ms Von Ehrenstein and the other directors ‘malicious’ for it.

Now, Ms Cartlidge has successfully sued the Sherlock Holmes Museum for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal. She also won claims of unlawful deduction of holiday pay.

Honoria Cartlidge, who was on a £120,000 salary, successfully sued the Sherlock Holmes Museum after she was fired when she demanded a £500,000 bonus. She was fired from the family-run museum on Baker Street, London after she became embroiled in a bitter money row with its female director when their long-term relationship broke down (stock photo)

The tribunal ruled even though she was not entitled to the £500,000 that she thought she was, the directors – including her ex-girlfriend – had acted unfairly in not bothering to hear her argument.

The Sherlock Holmes Museum, which attracts tourists from across the globe, boasts it is the ‘official home’ of the fictional detective.

The Georgian townhouse museum is located at 221b Baker Street – the actual address the fictional detective lived at.

It is run by directors Ms Von Ehrenstein, 35, her mother Andrea Von Ehrenstein, 57, and John Aidiniantz, 62, under parent company 221B Ltd, according to tribunal papers.

It is not the first time the museum has become caught up in legal battles – as Mr Aidiniantz is reportedly locked in a long-running High Court feud with his brother over it.

The London Central tribunal heard Ms Cartlidge began working at the museum in 2013. Her salary increased from £54,000 to £120,000 between 2016 and 2019 because the family were ‘very happy’ with her work

She claimed she was also paid for additional duties by the director she was in a relationship with for helping out the family. This included assisting with the renovation of their property, babysitting and childcare and dog-sitting.

But the family claimed they didn’t pay her for any additional duties, and she did these as a member of the family.

Over several years, Ms Cartlidge received £145,000 from Ms Von Ehrenstien.

Ms Von Ehrenstien told the tribunal there were payments ‘in the relationship’ but not in a business sense. She said: ‘I was helping out when she was asking me for money on several different occasions’.

In 2016, Ms Cartlidge was paid a bonus of £3,000 and she ‘expressed unhappiness’ at the size and claimed she had been promised £500,000.

Ms Cartlidge and her girlfriend split up in 2019, with Ms Von Ehrenstien saying it was because of the ‘financial demands’ of helping when she was asked for money.

Following the break-up, she continued working at the museum but things became ‘strained’.

In May 2020, following a text from Ms Von Ehrenstien saying she had given her ‘nearly £140,000’, Ms Cartlidge replied: ‘Laura, the company owes me £500,000, which is less than 10 per cent of yearly income, that I helped to achieve.’

Ms Von Ehrenstien told the tribunal: ‘She [was] talking nonsense. I may not pay attention as she often asks for money. I see this and I blank it, not listen. She often asked for money because of the profit of the business – she was very money orientated.’

Now, Ms Cartlidge has successfully sued the Sherlock Holmes Museum for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal. She also won claims of unlawful deduction of holiday pay

In July 2020, because of ‘tensions’ the family decided to take back a dog she had been given by the family.

Her ex turned up to her flat and took it back. The dog had been in her possession for five years and the panel saw this as ‘an act of maliciousness’ which badly hurt Ms Cartlidge.

The family then decided to fire Ms Cartlidge over her demand that they owed her £500,000.

Employment Judge Mark Emery said she wasn’t entitled to the bonus and lost her claim of unlawful deduction of wages through unpaid bonus.

The judge said: ‘We accept that during 2014-16 [she] was often performing a role as a babysitter. She was seen as “part of the family”.

‘We concluded that the failure of [Ms Cartlidge] to record at any point prior to May 2020 that there was a verbal contract in January 2018 to pay her a bonus of £500,000 in Summer 2019 is fatal to her argument that a binding agreement was reached to pay this amount.

‘We find it incredible that [Ms Cartlidge] said she considered that she did not need to acknowledge the promise.’

However, Judge Emery ruled she was unfairly dismissed as the directors didn’t let her explain why she thought she was owed it.

Judge Emery said: ‘She was not given an opportunity to say why she believed she had an entitlement to the bonus and why she believed the directors may be acting unlawfully.

‘She genuinely believed she had this entitlement, even if the directors genuinely believed she did not. Instead, they reacted with anger, rejected her arguments as without any merit and summarily dismissed her.

‘We therefore concluded that the dismissal was unfair because there was no attempt to conduct any process in circumstances where it was clearly reasonable to do so.’

Compensation for both Ms Cartlidge’s winning claims will be determined at a later date. 

Source: Read Full Article