Neale v Hereford and Worcester County Council: CA 1986

May LJ said that the decision of an employer’s disciplinary hearing: ‘neither the EAT nor this Court could disturb their decision unless one could say in effect ‘My goodness, that is certainly wrong’.’ He discussed the test for an apellate court finding perversity in a tribunal’s judgment, saying that:’is that an appellate court can very easily persuade itself that, as it certainly would not have reached the same conclusion, the Tribunal that did so was `certainly wrong’. The more dogmatic the temperament of the judges, the more likely they are to take that view. That is a classic non sequitur. It does not matter whether, with whatever degree of certainty, the appellate court considers that it would have reached a different conclusion. What matters is whether the decision under appeal was a permissible option. To answer that question in the negative in the context of employment law the EAT will almost always have to be able to identify a finding of fact which was unsupported by any evidence or a clear self misdirection in law by the industrial tribunal. If it cannot do this it should re-examine with the greatest care its preliminary conclusion that the decision under appeal is not a permissible option and has to be characterised as perverse.’

Judges:

May LJ, Ralph Gibson LJ, Stocker LJ

Citations:

[1986] ICR 471

Cited by:

CitedSantamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (T/A IEC Ltd) EAT 26-Nov-2002
The claimant appealed against a decision that she had not been unfairly dismissed. She had been dismissed after complaints by a colleague, but had not been given the opportunity to examine him during the process.
Held: An employer was not duty . .
CitedBritish Telecommunications Plc v Sheridan CA 1990
The appellant employers challenged the decision of the EAT to reverse the tribunal’s finding that the claimant had been fairly dismissed.
Held: Even in cases where the Appeal Tribunal has ‘grave doubts’ about the decision of the Employment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.341169