DPP Law Ltd v Greenberg

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision and restored the Employment Tribunal's conclusion that the dismissal for alleged gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. The court applied the established Burchell test (genuine belief; reasonable grounds for that belief; reasonable investigation) and emphasised that an employment tribunal's decision must be read fairly and in the round. The court held that the ET had correctly identified the employer's reasons for dismissal, found that the decisionmakers genuinely believed those reasons and had reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the ET's reasoning was Meek compliant. The EAT was held to have erred by over‑analysing the ET's language and substituting its own view of the evidence for the ET's findings.

Background and parties: The respondent, a criminal defence solicitor and former partner/director, was dismissed by his employer, DPP Law Ltd, for alleged gross misconduct arising from his acceptance of cash payments from the father of a legally aided client. The employer relied on provisions of its Legal Aid Agency contract (paragraphs 8.41–8.44) prohibiting unauthorised payments or "top‑ups". The respondent brought an unfair dismissal claim.

Procedural history: The Employment Tribunal (Judge Ferguson) dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the reason for dismissal related to conduct, that the decisionmakers genuinely believed the misconduct allegations, and that they had reasonable grounds. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (HHJ Auerbach) allowed the respondent's appeal, holding that the ET had impermissibly substituted its own view of the evidence and had not made sufficient findings about the decisionmakers' specific reasoning; the EAT remitted the case for rehearing. DPP Law appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Nature of the claim/application: An unfair dismissal claim; relief sought was a finding that dismissal was unfair and appropriate remedies (not specified in the judgment).

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the reason for dismissal related to the respondent's conduct.
• Whether the employer held a genuine belief in the respondent's misconduct.
• Whether the employer had reasonable grounds for that belief and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable.
• Whether the ET had applied the correct test and adequately explained its findings so as to permit appellate review.

Court's reasoning: The Court of Appeal reiterated that tribunals should be read fairly and not hyper‑critically, and that Meek compliance does not require reciting every piece of evidence or every step of reasoning. The ET had correctly stated and applied the Burchell test and had made express findings that the decisionmakers genuinely held the beliefs that led to dismissal and that those beliefs had reasonable grounds. The Court rejected the EAT's approach of inferring from the ET's conciseness that it had not considered evidence of the decisionmakers' reasoning. The court considered the ET's passages (including its assessment of the LAA contract, the differing circumstances of the two payments, the weight given to an independent professional's statement, the relevance of prior internal advice and the SRA's later non‑action) to be directed at assessing whether the employer's belief had reasonable grounds. The EAT was held to have erred by treating the ET's discussion as the tribunal's own substitute analysis rather than reasons addressing the employer's mentality.

Wider implications: The judgment underscores appellate restraint, the proper application of the Burchell test, and that an ET need not exhaustively detail every step of reasoning so long as its decision is Meek compliant and read fairly as a whole.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Tribunal had correctly applied the Burchell test, made adequate findings that the employer genuinely believed the misconduct allegations and had reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the EAT erred by over‑analysing and substituting its own view for the ET's decision. The ET's reasons were Meek compliant and sufficient when read fairly as a whole.

Employment Tribunal (Judge Ferguson) dismissed the respondent's unfair dismissal claim (reserved judgment dated 2 January 2019). Employment Appeal Tribunal (HHJ Auerbach) allowed the respondent's appeal and remitted the claim for rehearing (judgment sealed 11 September 2020). Court of Appeal (Popplewell LJ, Lewison LJ, Lewis LJ) allowed the employer's appeal and restored the ET's decision, [2021] EWCA Civ 672 (handed down 7 May 2021).