Coroner Finds Treasury 'Materially Contributed' to Employee's Death Over Disciplinary Failures
A coroner has concluded that HM Treasury "materially contributed" to the death of Chloe Moffat, a 26-year-old personal assistant who took her own life after facing disciplinary proceedings. Coroner Anna Crawford determined that the shock and distress of the allegations, combined with Moffat's belief she would lose her job, contributed to her state of mind and her decision to end her life. The inquest took place at the Surrey coroners' court [The Guardian, 2026-07-10].
Moffat had worked at the UK Treasury as a personal assistant for nearly three years. During a three-day hearing, the coroner heard that Moffat "loved her job" and had an "exemplary employment record." Coroner Crawford found that Moffat "appeared well and happy" before a meeting on 19 May 2025, with no previous concerns about her mental health. The trigger for her distress was an anonymous complaint alleging she had informally shared information about colleagues that she had access to through her role. Moffat denied the allegation [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
The Treasury's human resources policy, which follows guidelines from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas — a public body that provides guidance on workplace disputes), requires that serious misconduct allegations be handled through a formal process. A formal process guarantees certain protections: the employee gets five days' notice, can bring a third party for support, and is told the likely outcome. Coroner Crawford found that the meeting with Moffat did not follow Treasury policy because decisions had already been made to limit her role and responsibilities, and the policy has no provision for such informal meetings [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
Although the meeting was described as "informal," Moffat's job responsibilities were temporarily changed and her access to her manager's diary was removed. The head of global issues at the Treasury, who was running the investigation, told the court she did not give Moffat prior notice because she did not want her to worry. During the meeting, Moffat was not reassured that her job was safe — even though dismissal was unlikely — and she was not allowed to have a third party of her choice present. When Moffat asked in tears whether she would lose her job, the investigator said she could not predict the outcome of any potential investigation [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
The disciplinary process left Moffat "devastated" and convinced she had lost her job. She took her own life the morning after the meeting [The Guardian, 2026-08-10]. Prior reporting noted that her death came one day after the anonymous complaint was filed [Metro, 2026-08-01]. Moffat's line manager told the court she would not have done anything differently, saying they did all they could with the information and advice they had at the time [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
Coroner Crawford found that by handling the matter as they did, Moffat was denied key safeguards, and the fear that she would lose her job materially contributed to her state of mind and her decision to take her own life. The coroner also found a risk of future deaths within the civil service from poorly handled disciplinary proceedings. Crawford said she would send a prevention of future deaths report — a formal document that requires recipients to respond — to the head of the civil service, the Treasury, and Acas [The Guardian, 2026-08-10].
HM Treasury has pledged to update its disciplinary procedures following Moffat's death [HR Grapevine, 2026-07-23]. The prevention of future deaths report functions as a mechanism that compels recipients to reply, placing institutional pressure on the civil service to address gaps in its disciplinary frameworks.
The broader context here is the distinction between formal and informal disciplinary routes — a difference that sits at the heart of this case. Treasury policy requires formal handling of serious misconduct, which comes with built-in protections: advance notice, the right to accompaniment, and clarity on likely outcomes. By launching an informal meeting while simultaneously imposing restrictions — removing diary access and altering job responsibilities — the investigator bypassed those safeguards. The coroner's finding that the policy "makes no provision for such informal meetings" pinpoints a gap between procedural rules and what managers actually did.
Crawford's determination that the Treasury "materially contributed" to Moffat's death establishes a direct causal link between the procedural failures and the outcome. The decision by the head of global issues to withhold prior notice to prevent worry, combined with the refusal to reassure Moffat about her job security, created conditions the coroner found directly affected Moffat's state of mind. The line manager's testimony that she would not have acted differently suggests the systemic problem lies in the guidance managers received — a point the prevention of future deaths report will likely address.
For civil service HR practitioners and institutional leaders, the inquest outcome reframes how informal disciplinary mechanisms are evaluated. When an informal meeting involves preemptive restrictions on role and access, it carries the weight of a formal process without the corresponding protections. The Treasury's commitment to update its procedures, alongside the coroner's report to the head of the civil service and Acas, will require scrutiny of how Acas guidelines on informal resolution are interpreted and applied across government departments. The risk of future deaths, as the coroner identified, elevates this from an individual tragedy to a systemic procedural concern.
