Owusu-Ansah v Woolworths Plc Eastern

On an appeal from an employment tribunal, the appellate court may intervene only for an error of law. It cannot retry the facts or substitute its own assessment for that of the tribunal.

In misconduct dismissal cases, the employer must have an honest belief in the employee’s misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and a reasonable investigation in all the circumstances. The investigation may still be required even where the employee admits the conduct. Its necessary scope is a matter of degree and judgment. The dismissal must also fall within the band of reasonable responses.

The applicant was summarily dismissed by Woolworths after admitting that he had locked two fire exits before the store closed, while people remained in the store. He alleged that the disciplinary investigation and hearing were procedurally unfair.

An Employment Tribunal found the dismissal fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal at a preliminary hearing, concluding that there was no error of law and no realistic prospect of success. The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issues were whether the tribunals had applied the correct legal test and whether the investigation was legally insufficient.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The Employment Tribunal had applied the correct legal test and was entitled to reach its conclusions on the evidence and documents.
2. An appeal from an Employment Tribunal lies only on a question of law. The appellate court cannot conduct a fresh trial, rehear the factual evidence, or substitute its own view for the employer’s or the tribunal’s assessment.
3. For a misconduct dismissal to be fair, the employer must establish an honest belief that the employee committed misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and a reasonable investigation in all the circumstances. The dismissal must fall within the band of reasonable responses. The court identified these as the principles governing conduct dismissals in Burchall.
4. An admission of the relevant conduct does not necessarily remove the need for investigation. The employer may still need to establish the surrounding circumstances. The extent of investigation required is a matter of degree and depends on the employer’s judgment, including the witnesses and detail reasonably required.
5. The tribunal was entitled to find that Woolworths had conducted sufficient investigation. There had been investigatory interviews, a disciplinary hearing and an appeal. The process could perhaps have been more thorough, but it was not unreasonable in law.

Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal was refused.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed at a preliminary hearing because there was no error of law and no real prospect of success.
• Employment Tribunal: The complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed; the tribunal unanimously found the dismissal fair.