Post Office v Liddiard

Under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, once the employer establishes conduct as the reason for dismissal, the tribunal must decide whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. It must assess the employer’s reasonableness and must not substitute its own preferred decision.

Where dismissal is based on alleged reputational damage, the tribunal must address whether the employee’s conduct reasonably justified dismissal for that reason. Relevant matters may include the employee’s record, the relationship between the conduct and the employment, public contact, and the employer’s circumstances. An employer may ordinarily rely on an employee’s criminal conviction without conducting its own investigation.

Mr Liddiard, a long-serving Post Office employee, was summarily dismissed after being convicted in France of an offence arising from football hooliganism during the 1998 World Cup. The Post Office treated his conduct as bringing it into disrepute.

An Employment Tribunal found the dismissal unfair, made no finding of contributory conduct, and ordered reinstatement. The Employment Appeal Tribunal summarily dismissed the Post Office’s appeal. The Post Office appealed to the Court of Appeal, alleging misdirection and perversity. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had properly assessed the reasonableness of dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s decision could not stand, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal ought to have allowed the Post Office’s appeal.
2. Section 98 required the Tribunal to decide whether the Post Office acted reasonably in treating the employee’s conduct as a sufficient reason for dismissal. The correct approach was that stated in Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones [1983] ICR 17 and confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Foley v Post Office. The Tribunal was not entitled to substitute its own view of the appropriate decision.
3. The Tribunal failed to address the central question: whether dismissal was reasonable because the Post Office believed that the employee’s conduct had brought it into disrepute. Press coverage was relevant because it resulted from the conduct and formed part of the alleged reputational harm. Other relevant matters included the employee’s excellent record, the lack of connection with his employment, his limited public contact, and the circumstances of summary dismissal.
4. The Tribunal also erred in questioning the French conviction and in treating the employee’s denial of guilt as significant. Applying P v Nottingham County Council [1992] ICR 706, an employer was entitled to regard an employee convicted by a court as having committed the offence.
5. The Tribunal’s reasoning on contribution, which attributed the dismissal principally to political intervention and publicity, also failed to address the stated misconduct reason. The claim was remitted for rehearing by a different employment tribunal. The application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

The court added that section 98 did not require a different construction or application because of the Convention rights relied upon.

• Employment Tribunal: Found the dismissal unfair, found no contributory conduct, and ordered reinstatement.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Summarily dismissed the Post Office’s appeal.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal and remitted the unfair-dismissal claim for rehearing by a different employment tribunal.