Dr Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: EAT 2 Mar 2007

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons
Public Interest Disclosure
Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inadmissible reason for dismissal – burden of proof – whether Protected Disclosures – case remitted to same Employment Tribunal for further consideration.
His Honour Judge Clark
[2007] UKEAT 0516 – 06 – 0203, UKEAT/0516/06, [2007] ICR 945, [2007] IRLR 309
Bailii, EATn
Employment Rights Act 1996 103A
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAssociated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v Brady EAT 31-Mar-2006
The reason adduced by the union for the dismissal of the climant was found by the Tribunal on the facts not to be the true reason for dismissal, the true reason being the union executive committee’s political antipathy to Mr Brady.
Held: It . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromKuzel v Roche Products Ltd CA 17-Apr-2008
The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and . .
CitedRoss v Eddie Stobart Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically Unfair Reasons) EAT 8-Aug-2013
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons
Burden of proving the ‘whistleblowing’ reason for dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 lies on the employee who has insufficient continuous . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 March 2021; Ref: scu.249627