Halliday v Laurent Perrier (UK) Ltd

An Employment Appeal Tribunal should interfere with an Employment Tribunal’s factual decision only where an overwhelming case shows that no reasonable tribunal, properly applying the law and evidence, could have reached it. The appellate tribunal must respect the first-instance tribunal’s advantages in hearing witnesses and reviewing the evidence. Reasons should explain why the parties won or lost, but need not address every piece of evidence or submission. A finding that an employee was dismissed for persistent wilful failure to perform essential duties, rather than because of disability, will not be perverse where it is supported by evidence and falls within the reasonable range of responses.

The Claimant, a dyslexic salesman, appealed against an Employment Tribunal decision dismissing claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The Tribunal found that his dismissal followed persistent failures to prepare and submit required reports and that the sole operative reason was wilful failure to communicate. It rejected the contention that the dismissal was because of dyslexia, or that reasonable adjustments were required because the relevant reporting requirement placed him at a substantial disadvantage.

The appeal grounds alleged perversity, inadequate weight given to a management minute, and failure to consider conscious or unconscious disability discrimination. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s conclusions were conclusions no reasonable tribunal could have reached.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal’s decision was not perverse. It had evidence entitling it to find that the Claimant’s persistent failure to produce short, essential reports was wilful, and that dismissal was within the reasonable range of responses.
2. The stringent approach to perversity in Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634 applied. An appeal should succeed only where an overwhelming case establishes that no reasonable tribunal, properly appreciating the evidence and law, could have reached the decision. Even grave doubts require great care, as stated in British Telecommunications PLC v Sheridan [1990] IRLR 27.
3. The appellate tribunal must read the Employment Tribunal’s reasons as a whole. It must not use a fine-tooth comb, retry the evidence, or assume that matters not expressly mentioned were overlooked. The reasons need only enable the parties and an appellate court to understand why the decision was reached. The guidance in Royal Society for the Protection of Birds v Croucher [1984] IRLR 425, Retarded Children’s Aid Society v Day [1978] IRLR 128, ASLEF v Brady [2006] IRLR 576, MA (Somalia) v Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 49 and Meek v City of Birmingham DC [1987] IRLR 250 was consistent with that approach.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to reject the argument that the March management minute showed that dismissal had already been decided. The subsequent efforts to support the Claimant, obtain medical evidence and consider adjustments were inconsistent with the alleged charade.
5. The Tribunal was also entitled to find that the Claimant was dismissed for failure to communicate, not by reason of dyslexia, and that the reporting requirement did not place him at a substantial disadvantage. Its directions by reference to British Home Stores v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379, Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23, London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] IRLR 700 and Rowan v Environment Agency [2008] IRLR 20 were not shown to have produced an unlawful result.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal from the Reading Employment Tribunal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision, presented on 18 September 2010, remained undisturbed.