Male nanny who was sacked after demanding his millionaire employer pay for surgery when he tore a wrist ligament while chopping lobster in her £5m mansion loses tribunal fight
- Brian Handford was sacked from his £36,000 nannying job in July 2021
- He lost his tribunal fight against Russian-speaking millionaire Yulia Shkop
A live-in nanny who was sacked after he demanded his millionaire employer paid for surgery after he injured his wrist chopping lobster for her son’s dinner has lost an employment tribunal case.
Brian Handford tore his scapholunate ligament after he was asked to prepare and cook lobster for his Russian-speaking employer Yulia Shkop’s son at her £5million Surrey mansion in February 2021.
Never having done it before, the male nanny – who describes himself as a ‘Manny’ – had to watch YouTube videos on techniques for cooking lobster.
But Mr Handford was soon sacked from his £36,000 post after an argument ensued with his employer over whether she should pay for the surgery and three months of rehabilition he needed.
His employer’s mansion, surrounded by homes owned by Russian oligarchs, famous singers and business owners, overlooks the 1,700 acre gated community.
Brian Handford tore his scapholunate ligament after he was asked to prepare and cook lobster for his employer Yulia Shkop’s son at her £5million mansion in February 2021
The employment tribunal, held in Watford, Hertfordshire, heard how their working relationship broke down after the accident in February 2021.
Mr Handford, who also had a photography business, started working at the house in September 2020, when – in the midst of the pandemic – the home was gripped by a strict ‘regime of isolation’ designed to keep Ms Shkop’s eight year old son safe.
He was forbidden from leaving the estate and could not even visit a supermarket without having to isolate for five days, the tribunal heard.
Mr Handford had ‘a lot of fun’ teaching the boy, enjoyed free tennis lessons and access to the house’s pool, and dined with the family most evenings.
When two live lobsters were delivered to the house in large boxes filled with ice, Miss Shkop’s son was ‘excited’ to eat them, the panel heard.
She asked Mr Handford to cook the lobsters that evening, despite the chef having already gone home, specifying that he should freeze and cut them up before boiling them so that they would not scream and upset the child.
After calling the chef for advice, who directed him to a YouTube tutorial, he tried to prepare the ‘unusual and expensive’ food and tore his scapholunate ligament by pressing down hard on the knife.
The injury required an operation followed by six weeks of complete immobilisation and another six weeks of physiotherapy.
He and Ms Shkop later got into an argument when she refused to take ‘any personal responsibility’, Mr Handford told the tribunal.
She moved Mr Handford out of the house and into a staff cottage elsewhere on the grounds because she was ‘drastically upset’ by the situation and that her son had heard them arguing.
Just two days later, on July 5 2021, Mr Handford was told to leave the premises entirely.
The tribunal accepted Mr Handford’s version of events and rejected Ms Shkop’s claim that he hurt his wrist while performing a stroke in the swimming pool.
However, his claim of unfair dismissal failed because Ms Shkop had a ‘loss of faith and trust’ in him after their disagreement.
Employment judge Nathaniel Caiden said: ‘On 25 February 2021, two live lobsters were delivered to (the house) in large polystyrene boxes filled with ice.
‘The lobsters had been ordered by Miss Shkop and arrived after the chef had left.
‘Her son had just seen the lobsters and was excited at the prospect of these being cooked.
‘Mr Handford stated that he was asked by Miss Shkop t to prepare the lobsters, having been asked to contact the chef to find out their shelf life and how best to prepare them.
‘The tribunal prefers his account on this and finds he was asked in effect to prepare the lobsters once it was concluded there was a risk they would not last until the following day.
‘Miss Shkop simply stated in her witness statement that she did not ask him to cook the lobsters but she never explains why he would opt to cook such an unusual and expensive food.
‘Mr Handford had no knowledge on how to cook lobsters and his own evidence was that he initially thought that they were boiled but instead following contact with the chef opted to stun them by freezing them.
‘It was disputed whether the cause of the injury was the preparation of the lobsters.
‘Once again, we accept it was the cause because there was no other competing explanation that made more sense.
‘The suggestion that it was while hitting a hand in the swimming pool during the course of doing a stroke seems less likely as that would affect the fingers.
‘Miss Shkop in live evidence actually stated ‘I don’t doubt or question his version of events of how the injury to hand occurred’.
‘Fundamentally, she was of the opinion that Mr Handford was arguing too much in the meeting and ignored in her view the generosity she had always offered. This may be classed as a loss of trust and confidence.’
The tribunal also dismissed Mr Handford’s claim for an unlawful deduction of wages.
It ruled in favour of his claim that Miss Shkop was in breach of the requirement to provide an amended written statement of particulars in relation to being unable to work due to sickness, but concluded he was not due any compensation.
Source: Read Full Article
