Dunelm (Soft Furnishings) Ltd v Baker and Another: EAT 30 Oct 2012

EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment
Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
In the claim for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, parties proceeded on common basis that dismissal was on 17 February 2011. In reserved Judgment, the Employment Tribunal finds that dismissal was on 1 February 2011 (16 days earlier). Neither party was given notice or opportunity to make representations. Issue of importance because (1) if there was a dismissal on 1 February 2011 it was on the basis of a fundamental breach by the employer to which the employees had made no response and (2) it pre-dated consultation with occurred between 1 February 2011 and 17 February 2011. Breach of Natural Justice.
In the same case, the Claimant’s sought 1 month’s pay in lieu of notice. In reserved Judgment, Employment Tribunal awarded 3 months on basis a further 2 months was warranted by an implied term that if dismissal was to be for redundancy (as it was) there should be at least 2 months consultation. That point not argued. Breach of Natural Justice. Claims remitted to a fresh Tribunal.
Following success on liability, ET fixes a remedy hearing. At hearing the Claimant’s make oral application for permission to add new head of liability (non-payment of mileage allowances). Those claims would be almost one year out of time. ET allows amendments and immediately proceeds to award significant sums claimed, directing itself that any prejudice to the Respondent can be addressed by an application for review. Appeal Allowed. Misdirection as to fact and law in the determination of the applications. Applications remitted to fresh ET.

Luba QC
[2012] UKEAT 0142 – 12 – 3010
England and Wales
CitedPolkey v A E Dayton Services Limited HL 19-Nov-1987
Mr Polkey was employed as a driver. The company decided to replace four van drivers with two van salesmen and a representative. Mr Polkey and two other van drivers were made redundant. Without warning, he was called in and informed that he had been . .
CitedChapman and Another v Simon CA 1994
The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and rule upon other acts of racial discrimination not included in the complaints in the Originating Application.
Racial discrimination may be established as a matter of direct primary . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Natural Justice

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.467150