Metroline Travel Ltd v Justin Taylor

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of an ordinary unfair dismissal claim by substituting its own view for that of the employer and failing to apply the legal test of the range of reasonable responses to the investigation, disciplinary and appeal stages. The ET had accepted that there was a physical altercation and that Metroline had a genuine reason for dismissal, but criticised procedural aspects (for example the timing of disclosure of CCTV and witness statements) without analysing whether those matters fell outside the band of reasonable responses. The ET's comparison with a purportedly analogous case was treated as an example of impermissible substitution. The claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 100(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed by the ET and that decision was not appealed.

Background and parties:

Metroline dismissed a bus driver, the claimant, after a physical altercation at a depot with a driver employed by a third party. The claimant brought claims of ordinary unfair dismissal and of automatically unfair dismissal for a health and safety reason under section 100(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The ET (Watford, Employment Judge Bedeau) found the dismissal to be ordinarily unfair but dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim. The claimant was debarred from further participation in the EAT proceedings.

Procedural history to the EAT:

• The ET's written decision was sent to the parties on 3 October 2022.
• Permission to appeal was granted by Mathew Gullick KC (Deputy High Court Judge) on 9 March 2023, without limitation.
• This appeal was heard in the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 17 December 2024.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The claimant sought a declaration that his dismissal was unfair and, alternatively, that it was automatically unfair under section 100(1) ERA 1996.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether Metroline had a proper reason for dismissal and genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct.
• Whether the investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal fell within the range of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer (the Burchell test and its application to investigation and appeal stages).
• Whether any procedural defects were cured by subsequent stages (investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal).
• Whether treatment of the claimant was inconsistent when compared to a purportedly analogous case.

Key findings and reasoning of the EAT:

• The EAT accepted that the ET had proceeded on the premise that Metroline had established a reason for dismissal and that Metroline genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, but held that the ET erred in law by failing to assess whether Metroline's investigative and decision-making processes were within the band of reasonable responses.
• The ET criticised factual steps taken or not taken by Metroline (for example timing of disclosure of CCTV, obtaining witness statements and whether the appeal panel should have referred new evidence back), but did not explain why any omission was outside the range of reasonable responses; instead the ET substituted its own view of the facts and of the weight to be given to evidence.
• The ET's comparison with an internal comparator (the Loughlin incident) demonstrated substitution of the tribunal's view for the employer's evaluative judgments; the EAT held that such distinctions should be assessed by reference to the band of reasonable responses.
• Because the substitution error affected the ET's analysis of ordinary unfair dismissal, the EAT found the ET's decision to be fundamentally flawed and remitted the matter for rehearing before a different Employment Judge, leaving the ET's rejection of the automatic unfair dismissal claim undisturbed.

Practical outcome:

The EAT remitted the ordinary unfair dismissal claim for reconsideration because the ET had not applied the correct legal approach to the range of reasonable responses across the stages of the disciplinary process.

Appeal allowed and remitted. The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the Employment Tribunal erred in law by substituting its own view for that of the employer and by failing to apply the range of reasonable responses test to the investigation, disciplinary decision and appeal. Because that error was fundamental to the ET's finding that dismissal was substantively unfair, the EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the ordinary unfair dismissal claim for rehearing before a different Employment Judge. The ET's dismissal of the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1) ERA 1996 was left unaffected.

The ET (Watford, Employment Judge Bedeau) sent its written reasons on 3 October 2022 finding ordinary unfair dismissal but dismissing an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1) ERA 1996. Permission to appeal to the EAT was granted by Mathew Gullick KC (Deputy High Court Judge) on 9 March 2023. The Employment Appeal Tribunal heard the appeal on 17 December 2024 and handed down judgment in [2025] EAT 4.