Millet v Tesco Stores Ltd

An appellate tribunal will not interfere merely because tribunal reasons are economical. Reasons are sufficient if they tell the parties, viewed in the context of the evidence and issues they know, why they have won or lost.

A perversity appeal faces a high threshold. Where the Employment Tribunal's conclusion on the fairness of a capability dismissal was open to it on the findings, there is no error of law and the appeal must fail.

The claimant, a warehouse operative, was dismissed for continuing under-performance after informal and formal performance discussions, a reduced performance-plan target, warnings and a disciplinary process. He had a back condition, but the Employment Tribunal found that he had not produced the requested medical evidence to support further adjustments and had continued to under-perform.

Employment Judge Macmillan dismissed his unfair-dismissal complaint on 4 March 2013, with reasons promulgated on 18 March 2013. The claimant appealed, contending that the reasons were inadequate and that the conclusion was perverse. The central issue was whether either ground disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had made no error of law in dismissing the unfair-dismissal claim.

2. The reasons, although economical, were adequate. Applying Meek, their purpose was to tell the parties why they had won or lost. They gave the necessary account of the capability case, particularly when read by parties familiar with the evidence and issues.

3. The challenged finding concerning requests for a GP note did not warrant appellate intervention. The respondent accepted that the claimant had a back condition and had adjusted his work under the performance plan. The material question was whether that condition prevented him from performing the job, including as revised. The claimant had not relied on the condition as an explanation for continued under-performance at the disciplinary hearing.

4. The perversity ground was wholly rejected. The Employment Tribunal's conclusion that the claim was hopeless and that the dismissal was fair on performance-capability grounds was a permissible conclusion. Since neither inadequate reasons nor perversity established an error of law, the appeal failed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed in [2014] UKEAT 0089_14_2507.
• Employment Tribunal, Leicester: Employment Judge Macmillan dismissed the claimant's unfair-dismissal complaint on 4 March 2013; reasons were promulgated on 18 March 2013.