P Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a conduct-dismissal case, the tribunal must apply the Burchell inquiry and decide whether the employer had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and a reasonable investigation. It must assess the investigation and decision as a whole, without substituting its own view.

Where an application form requires employment history and contains a declaration against withholding relevant details, an employer may reasonably treat the accurate disclosure of a previous dismissal and an employment gap as material. The question remains whether the employer reasonably concluded, after a reasonable investigation, that the omission was dishonest and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The claimant, a Border Force immigration officer, was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent concluded that his 2019 application had dishonestly obscured his 2016 Home Office dismissal for gross misconduct and a subsequent three-month employment gap.

His claims, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, were dismissed by an employment tribunal in written reasons sent on 24 July 2023. Only the unfair-dismissal issue proceeded on appeal. The claimant contended that the tribunal had not adequately addressed the ambiguous, unguided employment-history box on the application form or his explanation for the omissions.

The central issue was whether the tribunal had adequately reviewed the respondent's conclusion that the claimant had dishonestly withheld relevant information.

1. Appeal dismissed. The employment tribunal correctly applied the conduct-dismissal principles in BHS v Burchell. It asked whether the respondent genuinely believed that the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had conducted a reasonable investigation. It did not substitute its own assessment for that of the employer.

2. The tribunal had adequately engaged with the claimant's contention that the application form did not expressly require months of employment, disclosure of gaps, or reasons for leaving. Its findings showed that it understood the investigating officer had to examine the form, the omitted information and its materiality. It was entitled to find that the claimant knew his previous dismissal and period of unemployment were relevant to a further Home Office application.

3. The tribunal was entitled to regard the investigation as thorough and to find that the respondent had reasonably rejected the claimant's explanations. The respondent could reasonably conclude that the use of years alone obscured the employment gap and prevented the vacancy holder from considering the previous dismissal at interview.

4. Cheltenham BC v Laird did not require a different result. That decision concerned a court's primary fact-finding exercise on a detailed medical questionnaire. In an unfair-dismissal claim, the tribunal reviews the employer's process under Employment Rights Act 1996. In any event, the applicable standard for factual statements in an application process is objective and requires reasonable care for accuracy.

5. The respondent's possible ability to discover the information elsewhere did not remove the claimant's obligation, under the declaration he accepted, not to withhold relevant details. The issue was not whether the respondent would ultimately have employed him if the facts had been disclosed. It was whether the respondent could reasonably conclude that deliberate withholding destroyed the trust and confidence necessary to the employment relationship. The tribunal was entitled to find that it could.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2025] EAT 15.
• Employment Tribunal: The claimant's claims were dismissed in a determination dated 6 June 2023, with written reasons sent on 24 July 2023.