Patrick v London Borough Of Lambeth

In an unfair dismissal claim, the question is not whether the employee was in fact guilty of misconduct. The issue is whether the employer genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, conducted a reasonable investigation, and treated dismissal as a reasonable response. Those questions are judged objectively by reference to the standards of a reasonable employer. A disciplinary procedure need not be perfect if it was fair and proper overall. Where those principles have been correctly applied, disagreement about the underlying employment conduct or professional context does not establish an error of law or provide a real prospect of a successful appeal.

The applicant, an experienced social worker employed by the respondent local authority, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after requesting the removal of information concerning an earlier rejection of prospective adopters from an adoption assessment form and later giving untruthful explanations about her role.

An Employment Tribunal rejected claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal, finding that the council genuinely believed she had committed gross misconduct, that the belief was supported by reasonable grounds, that the disciplinary process was fair, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The Employment Appeal Tribunal refused to allow the appeal to proceed, finding no arguable error of law. The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The central issue was whether the tribunal had applied the correct legal approach to the reasonableness of the dismissal.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal found no error of law and no real prospect that an appeal would succeed.
2. For unfair dismissal, the relevant question was not whether the applicant had actually committed misconduct under adoption law. It was what the employer believed about her conduct, whether there were reasonable grounds for that belief, whether the matter had been reasonably investigated, and whether dismissal was a reasonable response.
3. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the council genuinely believed that the applicant had requested the removal of relevant information, had not explained the request, and had lied about her involvement. Those findings provided reasonable grounds for the belief in gross misconduct and supported the conclusion that the applicant could not be trusted to avoid repetition.
4. The tribunal was also entitled to find that the disciplinary investigation, hearing and internal appeal were fair and proper. A procedure need not be perfect. The Court therefore did not need to reconsider the adequacy of the investigation in detail.
5. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that dismissal, although harsh in the circumstances, fell within the range of reasonable responses. The factual dispute about the adoption process did not affect the legal determination of unfair or wrongful dismissal.

Permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: at a preliminary hearing, declined to permit the appeal to proceed to a full hearing because it identified no arguable error of law.
• Employment Tribunal: dismissed the claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.