EAT Unfair dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Race discrimination – Indirect
Appellant was dismissed by the Respondent, who should have first obtained the approval of the Lord Chancellor but instead followed no procedure at all, disciplinary or otherwise. The reason was that she had been absent from her post in London for over 9 years, was now living in Wales, and delivered an invitation to return. Extensive grounds of appeal were reduced to two for full hearing: in relation to disclosure, and arguing that the Tribunal was obliged to apply s.98A(2) to hold the dismissal unfair. In particular, it was argued that the effective decision to dismiss was that of a third party (the Lord Chancellor) and thus it could not be proved by the evidence called by the Respondent what he – an independent third party – would have decided.
The appeal was rejected. The Appeal Tribunal lent further support to Kelly-Madden in its approval to ‘a procedure’.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Langstaff
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0365 – 06 – 1602, UKEAT/0365/06/DM
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc EAT 17-Jan-2007
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253158