Anne-Marie Alexis v Westminster Drug Project

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal against an employment tribunal’s rejection of an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal had found that the reason for dismissal was "some other substantial reason" within the Employment Rights Act 1996, namely that the relationship of mutual trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down following the claimant's persistent challenge to the outcome of a grievance and appeal concerning a competitive redundancy-style interview. The EAT held that the decision-maker had reasonably and genuinely concluded there was an irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence, that alternatives (including warnings) had been considered, and that the claimant's length of service was not material where the breakdown made dismissal the only viable option.

Background and procedural posture:

• The appellant, employed since 2010 and diagnosed with dyslexia, applied with two colleagues for two newly created posts in a restructuring exercise. Following an unsuccessful competitive interview she raised a grievance about the interview process and then appealed the grievance outcome. The employer offered a fresh interview with adjustments; the appellant continued to challenge the process by multiple emails to decision-makers and the chairman. She was invited to a meeting with an HR consultant (Mr Pink) to consider whether continued employment was tenable and was dismissed with 11 weeks' notice for "some other substantial reason." The employment tribunal (London Central) heard extensive evidence over five days in May 2022 and rejected her unfair dismissal claim. The appeal to the EAT was limited by HHJ Auerbach to specified amended grounds and proceeded to final hearing.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The appeal related only to the employment tribunal’s decision on unfair dismissal; the appellant sought to overturn that decision.

Issues framed by the EAT:

1. Whether the decision to dismiss failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant’s length of service; and
2. Whether the decision-maker had insufficiently considered alternatives to dismissal, such as a warning.

Court’s reasoning and findings:

• The EAT emphasised its limited remit to questions of law and noted the constrained grounds of appeal. It accepted the tribunal’s factual findings that the respondent genuinely and reasonably believed trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down, that a reasonable enquiry had been carried out, and that the claimant had been given an opportunity to put forward arguments.
• On length of service, the EAT held that service is only relevant where it bears on the reasonableness of dismissal; here the primary reason was the irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence, so length of service was not a material consideration.
• On alternatives, the decision letter showed alternatives had been considered and rejected as not viable; once trust and confidence had broken down, dismissal was the only realistic option, particularly given the need to progress the restructuring process.
• The EAT refused to entertain fresh points raised by the appellant that were outside the order permitting the appeal. It declined to disturb the employment tribunal’s findings of fact and dismissed the appeal.

Other observations:

• The judgment records regret at delay in hearing the appeal and notes practical resource constraints in the tribunal system.

The appeal is dismissed. The EAT upheld the employment tribunal’s finding that the reason for dismissal was "some other substantial reason" because the employer reasonably concluded that trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down; the tribunal had carried out a reasonable enquiry, considered alternatives and the appellant’s length of service was not material to that conclusion.

The claim was heard by the employment tribunal, London Central, over five days in May 2022 (panel: EJ Grewal, Ms Foster-Norman and Mr Pearlman). An order of HHJ Auerbach on 12 June 2023 limited the grounds of appeal permitted to proceed. The present judgment is the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision [2024] EAT 188 dated 12 November 2024.