The tribunal’s decision that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent had been reversed at the EAT. The respondent had been allowed to withdraw a concession, and the appellant now sought to pursue a different argument. The appellant, a former police officer and latterly a training officer had a brother convicted of serious sex offences. That brother had absconded in breach of his sex offender’s registration requirements, and it was said that the appellant had failed to act properly in not revealing his whereabouts.
Held: The EAT had criticised the Tribunal for not properly understanding the relationship between the appellant’s employer and the associated Police Force, but had failed to criticise the respondent for itself wrongly conceding it’s separateness. It was not for the EAT to promote a point not taken by the parties. In the very particular circumstances of this case neither tribunal had dealt with the correct issues, and the case was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for rehearing.
Judges:
Lord Clarke, Lord Hardie, Lord Osborne
Citations:
[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 75
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Kumchyk 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Employment, Police
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464695