Adeshina v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirms an employment tribunal must assess the fairness of dismissal by considering the entire disciplinary process, including any internal appeal.

An internal appeal can, in substance, cure procedural defects at an earlier stage where the appeal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses.

Apparent bias rules for judicial proceedings do not apply identically to internal disciplinary processes; the proper test is whether a fair‑minded informed observer would perceive a real risk of bias in the employment context.

Unfairness alone does not automatically permit an inference of race discrimination; the claimant must show "something more" under the statutory burden shifting framework.

The claimant, a senior pharmacist, was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct linked to resistance to an operational change and conduct at a meeting on 20 July 2011. The employment tribunal dismissed claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and race discrimination, finding procedural flaws at the dismissal stage but concluding the appeal process cured those defects and that the employer genuinely believed in misconduct. The claimant appealed on four grounds challenging procedural fairness, characterization of allegations, reasoning on wrongful dismissal, and race discrimination.

The EAT heard oral argument and reviewed the ET's findings and reasoning. The central question was whether the ET erred in law in assessing fairness by considering the process as a whole and in its application of the burden of proof on the discrimination claim.

The appeal is dismissed.

The ET correctly applied the principle that fairness is assessed by reference to the whole disciplinary process, including any appeal, and properly examined whether the appeal remedied earlier defects ([2006] ICR 1602 applied) (see paras [16]; [40]).

The ET was entitled to conclude the appeal panel's composition and conduct did not produce a real risk of bias in the employment context. Internal processes must be judged by industrial realities and the fair‑minded informed observer test applied accordingly (paras [41]–[44]).

The ET was entitled to treat Allegation 2 as conduct rather than capability. Substance not label governs characterisation of disciplinary issues (paras [45]–[47]).

The ET's factual findings supported a conclusion of wilful, obstructive conduct sufficient to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract; the wrongful dismissal conclusion was not inadequately reasoned or perverse (paras [48]).

On race discrimination the ET correctly applied the burden under Equality Act 2010 s.136 and concluded that unfairness plus a protected characteristic was not enough to infer discrimination absent "something more"; the ET found the decision‑maker genuinely believed in misconduct (paras [21]; [215]–[220]; [49]–[50]).

Result: appeal dismissed; the ET's conclusions were within the permissible range of responses and not perverse.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal — Full hearing allowed; appeal against the London (South) Employment Tribunal decision dismissed (this judgment) (01 May 2015).
2. Employment Tribunal (London South) — Judgment dismissing claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and race discrimination; decision sent 14 April 2014 (ET decision under challenge).
3. Employment Appeal Tribunal (permission stage) — HHJ Richardson directed that unfair and wrongful dismissal grounds proceed to a full hearing; later permission given for race discrimination ground to proceed.