Lord Justice Mummery said: ‘On the issue of ‘some other substantial reason’ for dismissal, I agree with the appeal tribunal. The employment tribunal erred in law in finding that the council did not genuinely believe that the continued employment of Ms Klusova would contravene statutory restrictions. I am mindful, of course, of the high threshold already mentioned to justify interference on the ground of perversity, even with an inference drawn by an employment tribunal from the primary findings of fact.
The employment tribunal singled out two aspects of the evidence when dealing with the issue of genuine belief. The first was the council’s failure to notify or consult with Ms Klusova about its concerns on the continued lawfulness of her employment, so that her solicitor could seek the necessary clarification from the Home Office. The second was that the council had considered the guidance in the Code of Practice issued by the Secretary of State.
The genuineness or otherwise of the council’s relevant belief is a matter of inference from admitted or established primary facts. In my judgment, no inference of an absence of genuine belief could reasonably have been drawn by the tribunal from the two particular facts expressly singled out. At most these facts are evidence of a lack of due regard by the council for the procedure for a dismissal decision which it did not believe applied. They are not, in my judgment, evidence of a lack of genuine belief in the unlawfulness of Ms Klusova’s continued employment.’
Judges:
Mummery, Laws, Moore-Bick LJJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1127, [2008] ICR 396
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – London Borough of Hounslow v Klusova EAT 5-Oct-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. The Respondent dismissed the Claimant as she could not provide evidence of her lawful working status. The Employment Tribunal erred . .
Cited by:
Cited – Smith and Others v Trustees of Brooklands College EAT 5-Sep-2011
EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Varying terms of employment
The Employment Judge was entitled to hold that the agreed variation of the Claimants’ salary was not for a reason connected with a relevant TUPE . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Immigration
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260273