Robert Spicer's Employment Law March Case Update - Chronicle Law

March has been a busy month in Employment Law! We are pleased to share a run down of Bob Spicer’s case law summaries featured on his Linked In page from the past month 20^th February – 20^th March 2025, covering key developments in the practice area.

A huge thank you to Bob Spicer of Frederick Place Chambers for his continued support of Chronicle Law and for allowing us to share his insights with our legal professional community.

This month we cover the following subjects:

Unfair Dismissal

Range of reasonable responses
Gross Misconduct
Procedural Failings
Compensation
Automatic Unfair Dismissal
Employment History

Discrimination

Pregnancy/ Maternity – Vento Guidelines
Indirect Sex Discrimination
Racial Harassment

Employment Tribunals

Transfer of claims to one tribunal
Early conciliation certificate
Unless orders – Strike out
Case management – Dismissal of claim

Unfair Dismissal Case Law

Range of reasonable responses

Case Metroline v Taylor [2025] EAT 4

Facts T was summarily dismissed following a fight with a colleague. He appealed against the dismissal on the basis that he had not seen CCTV recordings before the investigation meeting, that there had been co complaint from the colleague, that he had not been accompanied at the meeting and that a colleague in a similar situation had been reinstated. He complained of unfair dismissal. The ET found that the dismissal had been unfair because of flaws in the disciplinary hearing and appeal. The employer appealed to the EAT.

Decision

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The ET had failed to consider whether the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

3. The ET had wrongly substituted its view for that of the employer.

Gross misconduct – Job application

Case Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EAT 15

Facts E was employed by the Home Office. In 2016 he was dismissed for gross misconduct. In 2019 he applied for a different post at the Home Office. In the application form he failed to disclose the previous dismissal. The Home Office later discovered the omission and E was dismissed on the basis that he had been dishonest in his application for the post. His appeal against the dismissal was unsuccessful. He complained of unfair dismissal. The ET rejected the complaint, E appealed to the EAT.

Decision

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The ET had been entitled to find that the employer had reasonable grounds to believe that E had acted dishonestly.

3. The employer’s decision to treat E’s conduct as grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct had been reasonable in all the circumstances.

Procedural failings – Natural justice

Case Elhalabi v Avis Budget UK Ltd [2025] EAT 11

Facts C was accused of misconduct in that he had failed to work at a different site when instructed and that he had left a site unmanned and unlocked. C then obtained unauthorised CCTV footage from the employer. He was then accused of gross misconduct on the basis that he should not have obtained the CCTV footage. C denied that he had obtained the footage but that a colleague had done so. The colleague denied this. The employer found that C’s version was dishonest. He was dismissed for gross misconduct but he was not told of the dishonesty allegation before he was dismissed and this was a breach of natural justice. C appealed to the EAT.

Decision

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. Procedural failings in conduct dismissals were many and varied. They were not necessarily obvious issues which the ET must consider if not raies by the parties.

3. The ET was entitled to consider the whole of the dismissal process when asking if the claimant had been aware of the allegations against him.

Compensation – Reinstatement

Case Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd [2025] EAT 3

Facts D’s complaint of unfair dismissal was upheld by the ET. A reconsideration application by W did not change the finding. D appealed on the basis that the ET had been wrong not to order reinstatement or re-engagement. He also appealed against the amount of compensation which had been assessed as in the lower Vento band, the award of future loss of earnings and failure to apply interest.

Decision

1. The appeals were dismissed except for the interest issue.

2. Although reinstatement was possible, it was not reasonable to order it.

3. There was no evidential basis on which the ET could order re-engagement wher D had not applied for this at the ET.

4. The ET’s decision that this was a less serious case and the Vento award was not perverse.

5. The future loss of earnings award was correct. This ground of appeal was no more than a disagreement with the ET’s decision.

6. The ET had been wrong not to award interest.

Re-engagement

Case The British Council v Sellers [2025] EAT 1

Facts S, an employee of BC, was dismissed for gross misconduct following an allegation that he had sexually harassed an employee of the British Embassy which was closely linked to the British Council. His complaint of unfair dismissal was upheld by the employment tribunal. BC reinvestigated the allegation and found that it had been true. BC was aware that the tribunal might order the re-engagement of S. BC argued that there had been a genuine and rationally based loss of trust and confidence in S and he should not be reinstated. The tribunal rejected this and ordered reinstatement. BC appealed to the EAT.

Decision

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The real issue for the ET had been whether re-engagement was likely to be practical. BC had stated that S could no longer be trusted in employment.

3. The ET’s decision that BC could not rationally rely on the result of the reinvestigation was perverse.

Automatic unfair dismissal

Case Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Oliver [2024] EAT 193

Facts Ms O was made redundant by W when she was on maternity leave. She complained of maternity discrimination. At the hearing the employment judge ruled that a claim of automatic unfair dismissal had been made and was successful. W appealed to the EAT.

Decision

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The ET had been wrong to decide a claim which had not been part of Ms O’s original claim and had not been identified as a cause of action.

3. The ET should have treated the issue as an application to amend. If it had done so, it would have had to consider the relevant time limit. It had been wrong for the ET to fail to address this issue.

Employment history

Case Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force) [2025]

Facts E was dismissed for gross misconduct. The employer had reasonable grounds for believing that E’s decision to present his employment history in a way which obscured the fact and nature of a previous dismissal for gross misconduct had been reached dishonestly. The employer had been entitled to conclude that a reasonable applicant dealing with a black box headed “employment history” on an application form would have realised that the information needed to show any gaps in employment, education or training. E’s complaint of unfair dismissal was rejected. He appealed to the EAT.

Decision

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The ET had been entitled to find that the employer’s decision to treat E’s conduct as grounds for dismissal fro gross misconduct was reasonable in all the circumstances.

Discrimination

PREGNANCY/MATERNITY DISCRIMINATION

Case Eddie Stobart Ltd v Caitlin Graham (2025) Morning Star, February 18, EAT

Facts CG, an employee of ES, was made redundant during her maternity leave. She asserted her right to be given priority for suitable alternative roles. ES stated that the available roles were unsuitable. CG was required to attend an interview. Her application was unsuccessful. She lodged a grievance but this was not adequately dealt with. The ET upheld her complaint of detriment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination. It found that the failure to properly investigate her grievance amounted to discriminatory treatment. It awarded her £10,000 compensation for injury to feelings under the lower end of the middle Vento guidelines. ES appealed to the EAT against the amount of the award.

Decision

1. The appeal was allowed. The award was reduced to £2000.

2. Evidence of injury to feelings was minimal. CG had described being shocked and upset but there was no indication that the injury persisted or affected her personal or professional life.

SEX DISCRIMINATION

Case Marston (Holdings) Ltd v Perkins [2025] EAT 20

Facts P, an employee of M, complained of indirect sex discrimination resulting from a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that she should travel significant distances which put her at a disadvantage because of her childcare responsibilities. She also complained of unfair dismissal. The complaints were upheld by the ET. M appealed to the EAT.

Decision

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. It was unclear from the reasons stated by the ET whether it had approached the question of group disadvantage on the basis that the childcare disparity meant that this was intrinsic in the PCP or an obvious consequence of it.

3. The ET had also failed to properly engage with the application of the PCP as a general rule instead of in terms of its particular application to P.

4. The ET had appeared to accept that P had previously accepted that she had been made redundant. It decided that she should not be bound by that acceptance and that her dismissal had been unfair. M had understood that redundancy was not in dispute. It had been unfair for the ET to make this decision without allowing the parties to address this issue.

5. M could not properly understand why it had lost.

RACE DISCRIMINATION

Case Quitongo v Airdrieonians Football Club and Hetherington [2024] EAT 201

Fabts Q, a professional footballer, played for AFC in 2021 and 2022. In September 2021 he was informed that it was alleged that a supporter of AFC had shouted racist abuse at him during a match. He reported this to AFC. AFC investigated the matter but Q was not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation. He complained of racial harassment and victimisation. The ET dismissed all the complaints. Q appealed to the EAT.

Decision

1. The appeal was allowed in part.

2. The reasons given by the ET in respect of the victimisation claim were wrong in law.

3. The ET had also made inadequate findings related to one of the harassment claims.

Employment Tribunals Case Law

Transfer of claims to one tribunal

Case Ramos v Wolf Data Systems Ltd and others [2025] EAT 16

Facts R made a number of sex discrimination complaints, claiming compensation for injury to feelings and loss of earnings. The complaints related to WD advertising posts for women only. The employment tribunal decided to transfer all the complaints to the Watford tribunal so that they could be managed together and to avoid the risk of double recovery. R appealed against the transfer order.

Decision

1. The appeals were formally allowed.

2. In communicating the decision to transfer, there had been a failure to identify the relevant decision maker and to state reasons for the decision.

3. It was clear that no injustice arose from the transfer decision.

4. Applying the overriding objective, dealing with the proceedings fairly and justly required that the complaints should be transferred to Watford.

5. The errors could have no material effect on the result.

6. It was appropriate to confirm the transfer decisions.

Early conciliation certificate

Case Abel Estate Agents v Reynolds [2025] EAT 6

Facts R complained of unfair dismissal and detriment due to making a protected disclosure. The detriment claim was submitted without an ACAS early conciliation certificate. At a case management hearing the ET rejected the dismissal claim but allowed R to amend her claim to reintroduce it. A appealed against this decision.

Decision

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. Failure to comply with the early conciliation procedure does not deprive the ET of jurisdiction.

3. Parties are encouraged to conciliate but there is no absolute bar on hearing claims submitted without compliance.

4. Claims should not be dismissed for technical non-compliance if substantive justice can be achieved.

5. Early conciliation is not a punitive matter and the oversight of the ET, initially in allowing the claim to proceed, should not prejudice the claimant.

6. Failure to obtain an ACAS early conciliation certificate does not automatically prevent genuine claims to be heard.

Unless orders – Strike out

Case Fox v South Essex Academy Trust [2024] EAT 199

Facts F, an employee of SEAT, succeeded with a complaint of disability discrimination. Following the remedies hearing, SEAT applied for costs. F then applied for preparation time costs. F stated that she had sought early clarification of SEAT’s position but delays had occurred and SEAT withdrew its application for costs. F was given a time limit to prepare a bundle. She failed to comply with this. The ET struck out her claim for preparation time on the basis that she had persistently failed to comply with ET orders. She appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the strike out decision set aside.

2. The ET had failed to decide whether F’s failure was deliberate or wilful.

3. There were alternatives which were less draconian than a strike out but the ET had not considered the relevant legal principles or carried out the required assessment.

4. The ET had not engaged with F’s requests for accommodations in preparation for the hearing. If it had done so, there were less draconian steps which could have been taken which would not cause unfairness to SEAT.

Case management – Dismissal of claim

Case Anwar v Boots Management Services Ltd [2025] EAT 9

Facts An employment judge dismissed a claim by A at a private preliminary hearing when she was unrepresented. The judge had indicated to A that two of her claims had no chance of success, without warning her that he was considering dismissing one of them. A previous judge had already recorded the two separate claims and had not indicated that they were legally inconsistent. A appealed to the EAT.

Decision 1. The appeal was allowed.

2. A disputed that she had consented to the withdrawal of one of her claims.

3. There is a wide margin of appreciation for employment tribunals in relation to case management and the withdrawal of claims, the ET judge in this case had exceeded that margin and there was a procedural error of law.

FAQs

1. What is an Employment Tribunal?
An Employment Tribunal is a legal body in the UK that resolves disputes between employers and employees over employment rights. It deals with cases such as unfair dismissal, discrimination, wage disputes, and breach of contract.

2.What makes a dismissal unfair?
Dismissals can be deemed unfair if:

There is no valid reason for the dismissal
The employer fails to follow proper procedures (e.g., lack of warning or fair hearing)
The dismissal is based on discrimination or retaliation

3. Can employers dismiss an employee with a protected characteristic?
Yes, but only if the dismissal is based on valid and lawful grounds. Dismissing someone because of a protected characteristic is unlawful. Employers must:

Demonstrate that the dismissal is based on performance, conduct, or redundancy, not discrimination.
Follow fair disciplinary and dismissal procedures.

Robert Spicer’s Employment Law March Case Update