Taiwo v Department for Education

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal a decision of the Employment Tribunal and earlier refusals of permission because no arguable point of law was shown. The Employment Tribunal had dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination claims, upheld an unfair dismissal claim to a limited extent, found a 60% contributory conduct by the claimant and awarded a reduced basic award of 2,150. The Tribunal rejected the claimant's claim for reinstatement or re-engagement, applying section 116(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 after finding a fundamental breakdown in the employment relationship and that reinstatement or re-engagement was not practicable.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal had considered the claimant's medical and disability evidence and that its factual findings were supported by credible evidence. Because an appeal to this court is limited to points of law, and there was no error of law demonstrated, permission to appeal was refused.

Background and procedural history:

• The claimant, Mr Taiwo, was employed by the Department for Education for almost ten years and presented claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal on 30 July 2012 to the London (Central) Employment Tribunal.
• The Employment Tribunal heard liability in May 2013 and gave a detailed judgment on 12 August 2013, dismissing the disability claims but finding limited success on unfair dismissal. There was a subsequent remedies hearing and judgment on 31 January 2014 rejecting the claimant's application for reinstatement or re-engagement.
• Applications for permission to appeal were refused on paper and orally by judges including Her Honour Judge Eady and His Honour Judge Peter Clarke (22 October 2014), and permission was also refused by Lewison LJ on 31 December 2014. The claimant renewed his application to the Court of Appeal.

Nature of the application and relief sought:

• The claimant sought permission to appeal the Employment Tribunal's remedies decision (principally the refusal to order reinstatement or re-engagement) and complained that his disabilities had not been sufficiently taken into account.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether there was an arguable point of law entitling the claimant to permission to appeal to this court.
• Whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in its consideration of the claimant's disabilities and medical evidence.
• Whether the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that reinstatement or re-engagement was not practicable under section 116(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Court's reasoning and decision:

• The Court explained that its jurisdiction, like that of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, is confined to points of law and does not permit rehearing factual issues unless the treatment of facts is so flawed as to amount to an error of law.
• The Tribunal had conducted detailed fact-finding at both liability and remedy stages, had considered the claimant's medical reports and disabilities (including Asperger's syndrome, sickle cell anaemia and the effects of a stroke), and had concluded on credible evidence that there had been a breakdown in the employment relationship making reinstatement or re-engagement impracticable.
• There was also a finding of 60% contributory conduct by the claimant, resulting in a reduced basic award of 2,150. The Court found no basis to characterise the Tribunal's approach as legally flawed or procedurally unfair and therefore refused permission to appeal.
• The Court noted an application by the claimant about return of personal belongings but held it could not make an order in the context of this appeal; it observed that if the Department retained items they should be returned.

Appeal dismissed (permission to appeal refused). The Court held that no arguable point of law was shown. The Employment Tribunal had made careful factual findings, had considered the claimant's disabilities and medical evidence, and correctly applied section 116(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in concluding that reinstatement or re-engagement was not practicable. There was no basis for interference by this court.

Employment Tribunal (liability judgment 12 August 2013; remedies judgment 31 January 2014). Applications for permission to appeal were refused on paper by Her Honour Judge Eady and on renewed oral application by His Honour Judge Peter Clarke (22 October 2014). Lewison LJ refused permission on paper on 31 December 2014. Renewed application to the Court of Appeal was refused by Aikens LJ on 24 June 2015 ([2015] EWCA Civ 808).