P Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The tribunal had correctly applied the Burchell principles (as summarised from BHS v Burchell) in reviewing whether the employer honestly and reasonably believed that the claimant had been dishonest in his 2019 application form by presenting employment history in years only and omitting a 2016 dismissal and a subsequent three-month unemployment gap. The tribunal also addressed whether the employer carried out a reasonable investigation before concluding dishonesty and had taken account of the claimant’s explanations about the form. The EAT held that the tribunal had sufficiently considered the argument that the application form was ambiguous (drawing comparison with Cheltenham BC v Laird) but was entitled to find that the employer’s investigation and decisions fell within the band of reasonable responses and that dismissal for gross misconduct was therefore fair.

Background and procedural posture: The claimant, a career civil servant dismissed from Home Office employment for gross misconduct in June 2016, settled earlier tribunal proceedings by COT3 in July 2017. He later applied to Border Force in May 2019, completed an application form which recorded employment history in years only, and was offered employment subject to checks. After a former manager alerted current management to the 2016 dismissal, an investigation and disciplinary process led to the claimant’s dismissal in November 2020 for dishonesty in his application; his internal appeal was dismissed. He brought claims to the employment tribunal (including unfair dismissal). The employment tribunal dismissed his claims (oral reasons 26 May 2023; determination 6 June 2023; written reasons 24 July 2023). The claimant appealed; one ground was permitted to proceed that the ET failed to engage with the allegedly ambiguous application form. This appeal was heard in the EAT.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: The claimant sought redress for unfair dismissal (and had pleaded other employment claims at first instance but many were withdrawn or not pursued on appeal). The central issue on this appeal was whether the employment tribunal had erred in law by not adequately addressing whether the employer acted unreasonably in treating the claimant’s application responses as dishonest when the application form used a single open "employment history" box.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the tribunal correctly applied the Burchell test when reviewing the employer’s belief in misconduct and the adequacy of the employer’s investigation;
• Whether the tribunal failed to grapple with the claimant’s argument that the application form was ambiguous (by reference to Cheltenham BC v Laird) and that a reasonable candidate could have completed it as he did without wilful non-disclosure;
• Whether the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses open to the employer.

Court’s reasoning: The EAT analysed the Burchell principles and the standard of review applicable to conduct dismissals. It concluded that the employment tribunal had: identified and applied the correct legal test; considered whether the employer held a genuine and reasonable belief in misconduct; examined whether a reasonable investigation had been carried out (including interrogation of the application form); and assessed the claimant’s explanations given in disciplinary and appeal hearings. The EAT considered Cheltenham BC v Laird but distinguished it on its facts and role (primary factfinding and medical questionnaire interpretation) and found that the tribunal had nevertheless treated the ambiguity argument as part of the claimant’s case. The tribunal’s factual findings — including that the claimant knew such information was relevant, that he did not disclose it at interview, and that he signed a declaration warning against withholding relevant facts — supported the conclusion that the employer’s decision to dismiss for dishonesty was within the band of reasonable responses. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The EAT held that the employment tribunal applied the appropriate legal test (Burchell principles), adequately considered whether the application form created any ambiguity (including the relevance of Cheltenham v Laird), and correctly concluded that the employer had reasonable grounds, following a reasonable investigation, to form the belief of dishonesty. The dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

Employment tribunal hearing before Employment Judge M Butler (with Mr D Mockford and Dr H Vahramian) between 22–26 May 2023; oral reasons 26 May 2023; determination 6 June 2023 (written reasons sent 24 July 2023). Notice of appeal issued 29 August 2023; permission granted by Judge Keith on 10 January 2024 for the ground that the tribunal failed to engage with the application form; appeal heard in the EAT 28 January 2025; judgment [2025] EAT 15 (7 February 2025).