Jangra v Gate Gourmet London Ltd

An appeal from an Employment Appeal Tribunal lies only on a question of law. Findings of fact made by an Employment Tribunal after hearing evidence cannot be re-examined unless an underlying error of law is shown. A party’s dissatisfaction with the opportunity to present material does not itself establish legal error where the party was represented, evidence was heard, and the tribunal addressed the limited issues remitted to it. Permission may be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success and would cause further time and expense without useful effect.

The appellant was dismissed after periods of absence following a workplace injury. An Employment Tribunal upheld complaints of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer’s appeal in part and remitted questions concerning procedural fairness and justification to a fresh tribunal.

The fresh tribunal found that the internal appeal cured the procedural unfairness and rejected the discrimination complaint. On a later preliminary appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the discrimination appeal to proceed but dismissed the challenge to the finding that the dismissal was fair. The appellant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal on that issue. The central question was whether the proposed appeal raised an arguable question of law.

Lord Justice Mummery, sitting alone, refused permission to appeal.

1. Limits of appellate jurisdiction. An appeal from an Employment Tribunal is confined to questions of law arising from the tribunal’s decision or proceedings. There is no general appeal against findings of fact. Evidence is heard and facts are found by the Employment Tribunal, not by the Employment Appeal Tribunal or the Court of Appeal.
2. Application to the fairness finding. The fresh Employment Tribunal had heard evidence and made findings on the remitted issues, including whether the internal appeal cured the procedural defects in the dismissal. No underlying error of law was identified. The tribunal was entitled to make those findings and to conclude that the dismissal was fair overall. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was therefore right to regard an appeal on that issue as having no real prospect of success.
3. Opportunity to present the case. The appellant’s complaint that she had not been given a proper opportunity to say everything she wished did not make the tribunal’s decision erroneous in law. She had been represented, evidence had been heard, and the tribunal was concerned only with the limited questions remitted to it. Material concerning the wider history of her illness was of limited relevance to the procedural fairness issue.
4. Order. It would not be appropriate to allow the proposed appeal to continue when it was most unlikely to succeed and would involve further time and expense without effect. The application was refused. The separate discrimination appeal was not determined by this application.

• England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s ruling on the unfair-dismissal issue.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal against the finding that the internal appeal cured the procedural unfairness and that the dismissal was fair overall; it allowed the discrimination appeal to proceed to a full hearing.
• Fresh Employment Tribunal: found that the internal appeal cured the procedural unfairness and rejected the disability-discrimination complaint.
• Original Employment Tribunal: upheld complaints of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal and directed that remedies be considered.