EAT The claimant had worked as an adviser for the respondent identifying investment opportunities. He said he had been unfairly dismissed after disclosing that the company had overpaid for an investment. He now appealed against a finding that any disclosures were not made in good faith and were not qualifying disclosures. Though his dismissal had been found to be procedurally unfair, he was awarded nil damages for a 100% contribution to his dismissal. The EAT considered where the burden of proof lay in establishing whether a disclosure was made in good faith.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. It is for the Respondent to show that the Claimant acted in bad faith. However the factual findings made by the tribunal were not dependent on their mistaken view on the burden. They had found that the dismissal was not the result of the disclosures but because of the claimant’s misconduct.
Peter Clarke J
UKEAT/0288/05,  UKEAT 0288 – 05 – 2701
See Also – Bachnak v Emerging Markets Partnership (Europe) Ltd EAT 29-Jan-2002
Acceptance that case to go forward to full appeal. It was arguable that: ‘in the way set out its Extended Reasons [the tribunal] misdirected itself in law, in not holding that the terms and conditions of fixed term employment were, on their true . .
See Also – Bachnak v Emerging Markets Partnership (Europe) Ltd EAT 25-Mar-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal. . .
See Also – Emerging Markets Partnership (Europe) Ltd v Bachnak CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant asserted unfair dismissal. The company denied that he was an employee. The company now appealed against the decision of the EAT to grant the claimant’s appeal. The claimant had been an employee, but the arrangement had been varied so . .
Cited – Professional Contractors’ Group and Others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 21-Dec-2001
Legislation had been enacted to tax under Schedule E, people employed through one man service companies and similar. Representatives of such taxpayers sought review of the legislation as incompatible with European law being a hindrance to the . .
Cited – Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centre CA 21-Jul-2004
The claimant alleged that she had been dismissed for making qualifying disclosures about her employers. The employer said that her actions had not been in good faith. The claimant answered that her motive was irrelevant. The claimant appealed . .
Cited – Lucas v Chichester Diocesan Housing Association Ltd EAT 7-Feb-2005
EAT Public Interest Disclosure – On the evidence and on the chronology presented to the Employment Tribunal there were no grounds for finding that the Claimant’s protected disclosures were not made in good faith. . .
Cited – GMB Union v M Fenton EAT 12-Oct-2004
EAT Sex Discrimination
S4(2) SDA 1975: was A’s allegation false and not made in good faith? The allegation was plainly false and the ET did not, or did not clearly, so find; but insofar as the ET concluded . .
Cited – Bryant v Housing Corporation CA 21-May-1998
A complainant before an industrial tribunal will only be allowed to amend her statement in order to add an allegation of victimisation for sex discrimination where this arises naturally from the facts alleged. In this case the new claim was rather . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240201