Sattar v Citibank NA & Anor

In an unfair-dismissal appeal, fairness depends on whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances. The appellate court must review the Employment Tribunal’s decision and must not substitute its own view; intervention requires an error of law or perversity. A disciplinary process may begin before every investigation is complete, provided the employee has a fair opportunity to answer new material. Charges must be sufficiently clear, although general wording may cover obvious concerns arising from identified transactions. Under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, the PCP and substantial disadvantage must be identified separately. Flexibility does not erase the PCP, but no adjustment duty arises without substantial disadvantage. A written process may constitute a reasonable adjustment where it gives the employee a full opportunity to respond.

The appellant was a senior Citibank employee and Code staff member who was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after using the Bank’s staff transfer system for transactions involving charitable funds and personal or related-party interests. He claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, relying principally on alleged defects in the investigation, particulars of the charges, disciplinary hearings and reasonable adjustments for a brain tumour.

The East London Employment Tribunal dismissed the claims. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal considered whether the procedure was fair overall, whether the dismissal was based on the employer’s actual reason, and whether the Bank breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that the dismissal was fair overall and that the disability discrimination claim failed.

1. The appellate court focused on the Employment Tribunal’s decision rather than that of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Applying the stringent approach in Yeboah v Crofton [2002] EWCA Civ 794, intervention required an error of law or an overwhelming case of perversity. The Tribunal had applied the reasonableness test under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 without impermissibly substituting its own view.
2. The Bank’s investigation was not rendered unfair because disciplinary action began before every line of inquiry was complete. An employer may suspend or commence disciplinary proceedings when serious matters have emerged, provided the employee has a full and fair opportunity to address new charges or material. A formal investigatory meeting is not invariably required. The relevant question is the purpose of such a meeting and the investigation viewed as a whole. Here, the appellant knew the broad concerns, had opportunities to explain the transactions, and identified no lost exculpatory line of inquiry. The principle in A v B [2003] IRLR 405 did not assist him.
3. The charges had to be read fairly and in common sense. The concerns about using a junior approver and concealing the ultimate beneficiary were sufficiently apparent from the transaction documents. The separate allegation that the appellant used Mr Basu to negotiate his nephew’s debt was not clearly particularised and should not have been relied upon without a direct opportunity to respond. That defect did not invalidate the dismissal because the allegation was not central and the appellant had a full opportunity to address it on appeal. The overall fairness approach in Taylor v OCS [2006] EWCA Civ 702 permitted the appeal stage to be taken into account.
4. The Tribunal inaccurately described the appellant’s conduct as an attempt to conceal beneficiaries. The employer had relied on poor judgment, an appearance of impropriety and reputational risk, rather than a finding of deliberate deception. Read as a whole, however, the Tribunal understood and applied the employer’s actual reasons and did not uphold dismissal on a different basis.
5. The Tribunal had wrongly conflated the PCP with measures intended to alleviate disadvantage. The PCP was the requirement to make every attempt to attend the hearing without unreasonable delay. Nevertheless, the error did not affect the result. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant could participate without substantial disadvantage and that the written procedure gave him a full opportunity to answer the case. An indefinite postponement until after surgery was not required, and further questions were necessary only if required for a fair decision.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the Employment Tribunal.
3. East London Employment Tribunal: dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.