Taiwo v Department for Education

An appeal from an Employment Tribunal lies only on a point of law. The appellate court must not reassess facts or the Tribunal’s evaluation of evidence unless the treatment of the facts is so plainly wrong that it amounts to an error of law.

Where a tribunal has carefully considered the evidence, including disability and medical evidence, findings that the employment relationship has fundamentally broken down and that reinstatement or re-engagement is impracticable cannot be disturbed without an error of law. The statutory remedy under the Employment Rights Act 1996 must be addressed within the limits of the appeal.

The Applicant brought disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims after nearly ten years’ employment with the Department for Education. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the disability claims but found procedural unfairness in the handling of his grievance. It nevertheless concluded that dismissal would inevitably have occurred and reduced the basic award by 60 per cent for contributory conduct.

At a remedy hearing, the Tribunal refused reinstatement or re-engagement under section 116(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, finding a fundamental breakdown in relations and lack of practicability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal refused permission to appeal. The central issues were whether there was an error of law, failure to consider the Applicant’s disabilities and medical evidence, bias, or an unfair remedy hearing.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Limits of appellate review. The Court of Appeal could consider only a point of law. It could not reconsider the facts or the Employment Tribunal’s assessment of them unless the treatment of the facts was so wrong that it itself amounted to an error of law.
2. Findings on the employment relationship. The Tribunal had carefully considered whether the breakdown extended beyond the line manager to the employer. There was credible evidence supporting its conclusion that relations had fundamentally broken down. That was a finding of fact.
3. Disability and procedural complaints. The Tribunal had considered the Applicant’s disabilities and medical evidence at both the liability and remedy stages. There was no basis for alleging Tribunal bias or concluding that the Applicant had not received a fair remedy hearing.
4. Reinstatement and re-engagement. Applying section 116(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal was entitled, on the facts and on balance, to refuse an order where compliance was not practicable. The basic award of £2,150 reflected the earlier finding of 60 per cent contribution to dismissal.
5. Personal belongings. The Court had no power to order the return of personal belongings in the context of the proceedings. It nevertheless indicated that the Department should return any belongings it retained as soon as possible.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 24 June 2015, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused: [2015] EWCA Civ 808.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal — Permission to appeal the remedy decision was refused on paper and after a renewed oral application.
3. London (Central) Employment Tribunal — The Tribunal refused reinstatement or re-engagement at the remedy hearing and made a basic award of £2,150. No citation for the Tribunal’s decisions was stated in the judgment.