NSL Ltd v Dean Bean

In deciding whether a conduct dismissal is fair, a tribunal must assess the disciplinary process as a whole, including any appeal. Procedural unfairness may make a dismissal unfair even if dismissal was inevitable; inevitability may instead be reflected in compensation. Indirect discrimination and reasonable-adjustment claims require separate analyses: the former requires group and individual disadvantage and justification, while the latter concerns the disabled claimant’s disadvantage and reasonable steps to address it. A harassment finding must explain how the conduct related to the protected characteristic and how the statutory purpose or effect test, including context and reasonableness, was met.

Mr Dean Bean, a long-serving Civil Enforcement Officer with severe dyslexia, was dismissed by NSL after it concluded that his handheld device had falsely recorded his whereabouts during a patrol. The Reading Employment Tribunal found the dismissal unfair, but by majority found that he had committed the misconduct and reduced his compensatory award by 100%; it did not reduce his basic award. It also upheld claims of indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment.

NSL appealed those findings. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the Tribunal had assessed the dismissal process as a whole, including the appeal; whether it had lawfully approached the basic award and the distinct claims under sections 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010; and whether it had adequately reasoned its harassment findings.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed on Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Part of Ground 7 and Grounds 8, 9 and 10 were allowed. Disposal was reserved for further submissions.
2. Unfair dismissal. The fairness inquiry under the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerns the disciplinary process as a whole, including any appeal, whether by rehearing or review. There is no rule that a review cannot remedy an earlier defect: Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] ICR 1602. Read fairly and as a whole, the Tribunal had found that the unclear allegations and technical evidence remained significant notwithstanding the appeal. A procedural flaw may make dismissal unfair even where dismissal was inevitable; that likelihood can be reflected in compensation under Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8. The 100% compensatory award reduction was therefore upheld.
3. Basic award. Section 122(2) requires a just and equitable assessment focused on the claimant’s conduct. It does not require a reduction whenever misconduct is found. The Tribunal had considered Mr Bean’s misconduct and was entitled to leave the basic award unreduced: Parker Foundry Ltd v Slack [1992] ICR 302.
4. Indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments. The claims share the need to identify a PCP, but their disadvantage and justification inquiries differ. Section 19 requires both group and individual disadvantage, with the claimant suffering the same disadvantage identified for the group, and then asks whether the PCP is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Tribunal had not found group disadvantage and had not properly considered justification. Section 20 instead concerns the disabled claimant’s disadvantage compared with non-disabled people and the reasonable steps to avoid or reduce it. The Tribunal sufficiently identified the step of letting Mr Bean take the investigation notes away to review before signing. The employer’s duty did not depend on him asking for that adjustment. The reasonable-adjustments finding was upheld.
5. Harassment. A tribunal must explain what features of the evidence show that the conduct was related to disability and must identify the statutory proscribed effect, addressing the claimant’s perception, the circumstances and whether that effect was reasonable under section 26(4). The Tribunal’s reasons did not adequately explain those matters for either harassment allegation. The appeal on those findings was allowed.
6. Further procedure. The parties were directed to provide short written submissions on disposal within 21 days, and to notify the EAT within seven days if they considered a further hearing necessary.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: In NSL Ltd v Dean Bean [2026] EAT 132 , the appeal was allowed in part. Disposal was reserved pending further submissions.
2. Reading Employment Tribunal: Its reserved judgment, sent on 6 November 2023, upheld claims of unfair dismissal, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment. The compensatory award was reduced by 100%, with no reduction to the basic award.