EAT Practice and Procedure: Perversity – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Claimant’s tier 1 visa, permitting employment as a banking adviser, was coming to an end. The Respondent had made plans to employ her as a financial consultant under a tier 2 visa – it withdrew from doing so at short notice and dismissed her. The Employment Judge approached the question of fairness under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on the basis that ‘the stringent requirements of the FCA meant that she could not be employed’ as a financial consultant without a particular qualification known as CeFAP. Appeal allowed. As the Respondent accepted at the appeal hearing, there was no requirement of the FCA that the Claimant could not be employed as a financial consultant without the CeFAP qualification. The Employment Judge approached the question of fairness under section 98(4) on a basis for which there was no legal or factual foundation.
David Richardson HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0090 – 15 – 2407
Bailii
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552831
