Limington House School & Anor v Smith

In an unfair-dismissal claim, the tribunal must assess whether the employer had reasonable grounds for its honestly held belief in misconduct, on the material available to the employer after a reasonable investigation. It must not substitute its own findings about what actually occurred for that assessment.

Where the tribunal has also determined wrongful dismissal, its findings must clearly address whether the conduct amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. A failure properly to address either issue may require both claims to be reheard.

The claimant, a deputy head at a special school, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after two incidents involving pupils. The employers' disciplinary and appeal panels upheld dismissal following hearings and detailed decision letters.

The Employment Tribunal found the claimant unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. Although it accepted that the governors honestly believed she was guilty and that there had been a reasonable investigation, it made its own findings about the incidents and concluded that there had been no misconduct.

The employers appealed. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had properly determined whether the governors had reasonable grounds for their belief in gross misconduct, rather than substituting its own view of the facts.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal's findings of unfair dismissal could not stand. Its reasons showed that its own findings about what actually happened in the two incidents had influenced its conclusion that the employers lacked reasonable grounds to believe that gross misconduct had occurred.

2. The Tribunal correctly stated that it must not substitute its own view for that of the employers. However, it did not expressly address the question required by [1978] IRLR 379: whether the disciplinary decision-makers had reasonable grounds for their honestly held belief, following a reasonable investigation.

3. The Tribunal referred to evidence heard by it, rather than analysing the evidence before the disciplinary committee. It did not engage with the nine-page disciplinary decision letter, which on its face contained careful findings. Its conclusion that no reasonable employer could have found misconduct was therefore derived from its own factual assessment and could not sustain the unfair-dismissal decision.

4. The wrongful-dismissal finding also could not stand. The Tribunal had not expressly addressed gross misconduct, the relevant codes of conduct, or matters material to a special-school setting. Its factual findings were insufficiently clear to establish that summary dismissal was necessarily a breach of contract.

5. Both claims were remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal. On unfair dismissal, it must assess the employers' procedures, the evidence available to them, the sanction, relevant codes of conduct and the claimant's record. It must not treat its own findings as to what actually happened as determinative. The eventual result remained open.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the employers' appeal and remitted the unfair- and wrongful-dismissal claims for rehearing before a fresh Employment Tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal, Havant: Decision sent to the parties on 19 December 2012. It held that the claimant had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed.