R Ejvet v Genesis Education Trust

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge to an Employment Tribunal decision that had rejected claims of unfair dismissal (including automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996), detriment for making protected disclosures, and disability discrimination (sections 15, 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010). The EAT applied the Meek principles and rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and held that, read as a whole, the Tribunal's reasons identified the issues, set out the factual findings and applied the law so as to satisfy the rule. The EAT concluded that the Tribunal had not taken irrelevant matters into account nor omitted material relevant factors to an extent amounting to error of law, that the dismissal was for conduct and was within the range of reasonable responses, and that no serious procedural irregularity or material injustice arose from the late circulation of a 17-page document.

Background and parties: The appellant was a long-serving headteacher of St Margaret's Primary School. The respondent was Genesis Education Trust, a multi-academy trust which took the school into the trust on 1 April 2017. An internal audit raised concerns about a building contract awarded to Elite Building and Maintenance Ltd, a company run by the appellant's husband and brother-in-law. Investigations and disciplinary proceedings followed, resulting in the appellant's summary dismissal for gross misconduct. The appellant brought claims before the Employment Tribunal alleging unfair dismissal (section 98 ERA 1996 and alternatively automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A), detriment for protected disclosures, disability-related discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010 and failures to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010.

Procedural posture: The Employment Tribunal (East London) heard the case over nine days and delivered a reserved judgment on 20 August 2019 dismissing all claims. The appellant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Issues before the EAT:

• whether the Tribunal's judgment complied with rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the Meek requirements;
• whether the Tribunal took into account irrelevant matters or omitted relevant matters when making findings of fact;
• whether the Tribunal adequately dealt with the public interest disclosure (whistleblowing) complaints and causation; and
• whether a serious procedural irregularity occurred when a 17-page letter (dated 23 February 2018) was disclosed to the Tribunal during the hearing but allegedly not disclosed to the appellant.

Court's reasoning and conclusions: The EAT reviewed the applicable principles (Meek and subsequent authority such as Greenberg) and emphasised that reasons must be read fairly and as a whole. Applying that approach, the EAT found the Tribunal's decision was Meek compliant and satisfied rule 62(5): it identified the issues, set out core factual findings and applied the relevant law. The Tribunal had found (and the EAT accepted) that the true reason for dismissal was conduct and that the employer held a genuine belief in misconduct based on a reasonable investigation; the sanction of dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses (section 98(4) ERA 1996). The EAT accepted the Tribunal's analysis that the November 2017 letter was a protected qualifying disclosure but found no causal role for that disclosure in the timing of disciplinary proceedings or the dismissal; the earlier report to the police pre-dated the disclosures. On the alleged late disclosure of the 17-page letter, the EAT concluded it was more likely than not that the appellant's counsel had sight of the document and, in any event, no material injustice arose. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal's reserved judgment complied with rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the Meek requirements when read fairly and as a whole; the Tribunal did not err in fact‑finding by taking irrelevant matters into account or omitting relevant matters to an extent amounting to error of law; the dismissal was for conduct and within the range of reasonable responses; the protected disclosure did not causally affect the timing or outcome of disciplinary action; and no serious procedural irregularity causing material injustice arose from the late circulation of a document.

Employment Tribunal (East London), reserved judgment sent 20 August 2019. Appeal heard before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, judgment delivered as [2022] EAT 75.