The appellant employers suggested that the finding of unfair dismissal was perverse in having rejected uncontested evidence.
Held: The standard for such a claim was high – that the decision was ‘plainly wrong’ or similar. That standard was not reached in this case. The extended reasons did not fail to reflect proper findings on the facts before the tribunal. The employee appealed a notice that the recoupment regulations applied. It was not for the EAT to interfere between the benefits agency and the parties.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory Fault
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Charles
Citations:
EAT/171/00, EAT/1394/99, [2001] UKEAT 1394 – 99 – 0309
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Stewart v Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd EAT 4-May-1994
A display of nude images at a workplace may be discriminatory as sexual harassment, but some common sense was needed. The display of soft-porn photographs in a workplace need not of itself be subjecting a female worker to a detriment.
Mummery J . .
See Also – Turner Coulston (A Firm) v Janko EAT 18-Apr-2000
. .
See Also – Turner Coulston (A Firm) v Janko EAT 26-Jul-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168288