Asda Stores Ltd v Thompson, Pullan, and Caller: EAT 16 Jun 2003

The appellants had been dismissed after investigations satisfied the employer that the employees had been using illegal drugs. Cross appeals were made in the following misconduct unfair dismissal claim. The employees complained of the use of anonymous witnesses. The employer had successfully appealed against an order for disclosure of all the statements taken.
Held: Burton P said: ‘It is plainly the case, on what we understand of the facts that the allegations of drug taking and violence are serious, and that the fears of witnesses, whether or not justified in the absolute sense, are real, and the concerns of the respondent are real, and the obligations of the respondent have been upheld by this Appeal Tribunal in October 2001. Of course it is right that the tribunal has the final say, subject to appeal, but the tribunal cannot be in a position to make as informed a judgment as the respondent would be.’
Burton P
[2003] EAT 0063 – 03 – 1606, [2003] UKEAT 0063 – 03 – 1606, EAT/0063/03, [2004] IRLR 598
Bailii, Bailii, EATn
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoAsda Stores Ltd v Thompson and others EAT 11-Oct-2001
. .
CitedBritish Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
CitedKumchyk v Derby County Council EAT 1978
The appellant sought to advance an argument that a certain term was implied into the contract of employment which, for its consideration, would have required consideration of a factual framework which had not been explored in evidence.
Held: . .
CitedTaylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
CitedScience Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias HL 1-Nov-1979
Recent statutes had given redress to anyone suffering unlawful discrimination on account of race sex or trade union activities. An employee sought discovery of documents from his employer which might reveal such discrimination.
Held: The court . .
CitedAziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Limited CA 25-May-1999
The notice of appeal was served three days late. The Registrar and Morison J refused to extend time, the judge concluding that the explanation for the delay was honest and full, but not acceptable.
Held: Permission to appeal was refused. Sir . .
CitedRegina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
CitedUnited Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and others EAT 29-Jul-1994
At a preliminary hearing, when the respondent failed to appear, the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the claimant against the respondent despite the 1978 Act. The respondent sought to appeal out of time.
CitedSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Cook and others EAT 13-Dec-1996
Employees who are otherwise qualified employees will transfer with their undertaking even though they are unaware of the identity of their new employer. Morison J considered the situation where there was a transfer of the undertaking, but the . .
CitedBritish Railways Board v Natarajan EAT 1979
Arnold J considered when it was appropriate for the company’s confidential material to be disclosed to employee claimants in tribunal proceedings: ‘We think that before deciding whether an examination is necessary, the judge or chairman of the . .
CitedPrince PLC v Prince Sports Group Inc ChD 1998
In a threat action for trade mark infringement, the plaintiff had only supplied services. The defendant made a general threat without limiting it to proceedings in respect of goods or services. The defendant argued that the threat would be . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2021; Ref: scu.191623