Djedje v ICTS (UK) Ltd.

In an unfair-dismissal challenge, the employment tribunal determines whether the employer acted reasonably; it does not decide the employee’s actual guilt or reconstruct what in fact happened. The employer’s belief in misconduct must be genuine, based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation, and dismissal must fall within the range of reasonable responses. A procedural omission will not make the process unfair where the withheld material could not contribute to the central issue. An appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal lies only on a question of law. On a renewed permission application, the Court of Appeal asks whether there is a real prospect of showing an arguable legal error.

Mr Djedje brought an unfair-dismissal claim against his former employer after being dismissed for removing ice cream from an aircraft. The employment tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that ICTS had followed the three-step statutory procedure in Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002, had a potentially fair reason, and had acted reasonably.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected successive grounds of appeal as disclosing no arguable error of law. Judge Reid refused permission to appeal, as did Sir John Chadwick on the papers. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Djedje had a real prospect of showing that Judge Reid was wrong.

1. Application refused. The renewed application concerned the narrow question whether there was a real prospect of showing that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been wrong to conclude that the proposed grounds disclosed no arguable error of law with a reasonable prospect of success.
2. An appeal from an employment tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal lies only on a question of law. The employment tribunal’s task was to determine whether ICTS had acted reasonably, not to decide conclusively whether Mr Djedje had in fact committed theft.
3. The tribunal was entitled to find that ICTS had followed the three-step procedure in Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002; had a potentially fair reason for dismissal; genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds, that Mr Djedje had removed the ice cream improperly; had conducted a reasonable investigation; and had dismissed him within the range of reasonable responses. Those findings disclosed no error of law.
4. The failure to give Mr Djedje the notes of Ms Chryzanowska’s interview did not impair the fairness of the process. She was not a witness to the removal of the ice cream or the alleged exchanges with Mr Mohan, and therefore could not contribute to the central factual issue. The tribunal was entitled to regard the omission as immaterial. The notes were also received before the employment tribunal hearing.
5. Complaints about allegedly different statements, deliberate procedural failure, breach of ICTS’s rules, and the tribunal’s treatment of the evidence either lacked an evidential or legal basis or repeated the same rejected points. They disclosed no arguable ground of appeal.
6. Lord Justice Rimer additionally observed that, whether Mr Djedje removed the ice cream himself or knowingly accepted and concealed stolen ice cream, the conduct could be dishonest and could merit summary dismissal. The application was refused as without merit. Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Rimer refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: The Deputy Registrar, Underhill J and His Honour Judge Reid QC concluded that the proposed grounds disclosed no arguable error of law. Judge Reid refused permission to appeal, and Sir John Chadwick subsequently refused permission on the papers.
3. Employment Tribunal: The tribunal dismissed Mr Djedje’s unfair-dismissal claim after finding that ICTS had acted reasonably and had followed the statutory procedure in Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002.