EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: S.98A(2) ERA
P RACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The Employment Tribunal had not imposed a burden on the Respondent of proving that the dismissal of the Claimant was fair. There was such substantial evidence of potential unfairness that the Employment Tribunal as a matter of common sense was entitled to expect the Respondent to call the relevant evidence to rebut the strong prime facie case of unfairness. When the Respondent failed to call such evidence, the Employment Tribunal was entitled to have regard to that failure. That did not mean the Employment Tribunal placed a burden of proof on the Respondent.
The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal on a further ground of appeal. The Employment Tribunal has failed to deal with the question of whether had there been a fair procedure, the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, by reason of s. 98(2) of the ERA.
Observations on the importance of parties asking the Employment Tribunal to deal with omissions on its decisions as soon s those decisions are delivered – see Bansi v Alpha Services [2007] ICR 308.
Judges:
Serota QC J
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0458 – 09 – 0502
Links:
Employment
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401959
