Animadu v Mastercare Service & Distribution Ltd

In an application for permission to appeal from employment proceedings, the Court of Appeal will not reopen carefully examined contractual and disciplinary findings without an identified basis for further appeal. An employee may be required by the employment contract to accept and deal with work assigned by the employer and to remain contactable for that purpose. A tribunal’s conclusion that refusing assigned work and becoming unavailable to the employer was unreasonable, followed by a properly investigated dismissal, was not open to interference. Contractual claims examined in detail and rejected by the tribunal likewise provided no basis for permission.

Mr E A Animadu applied for permission to appeal from a judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning proceedings heard in January 2002. The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment was sent to the parties on 18 February 2002 and related to an Employment Tribunal decision dated 27 October 2000.

The Employment Tribunal had found that the employers had neither breached Mr Animadu’s contract nor failed to pay sums due under it. Mr Animadu argued that the tribunals had misunderstood his contractual obligations and misapplied the facts concerning the conduct that led to his dismissal. The central issue was whether there was a proper basis for a further appeal.

Lord Justice Buxton refused permission to appeal.

1. The applicant’s contention that his contract imposed only a limited obligation to respond to matters raised by his employers was misconceived. In the circumstances identified by the Employment Tribunal, he was not entitled to refuse the jobs required of him or to put himself out of contact with his employers while those jobs were in issue.
2. The Employment Tribunal had examined the alleged contractual breach in considerable detail. It was satisfied that the employer had properly investigated the matter through a formal disciplinary hearing, which the applicant attended and at which he could give evidence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the dismissal justified. The Court of Appeal agreed with that assessment and stated that it would not interfere with it.
3. The applicant’s claims for further sums under the contract had also been examined in exemplary detail and rejected. There was no basis for pursuing those claims further.
4. The formal order was: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) In [2002] EWCA Civ 755, permission to appeal was refused.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal The tribunal dismissed or rejected the applicant’s challenge in a judgment sent to the parties on 18 February 2002.
3. Employment Tribunal On 27 October 2000, the tribunal found that the employers had not breached the contract of employment and had not failed to pay sums due under it.