Craig Lamb v Teva UK Ltd

In a misconduct dismissal, fairness remains governed by Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98. The tribunal must assess the process as a whole, including any appeal, without substituting its own view for that of the employer.

Natural justice requires that the employee knows the accusation, has a fair opportunity to answer it, and is judged in good faith. The ACAS Code and guidance assist that assessment. There is no absolute rule that an investigator who has some prior involvement, or a note-taker who is also a witness, makes the process unfair. The question is whether the involvement and the procedure as a whole were fair in the circumstances.

Late evidence, and an unwise preliminary comment by persons who did not decide or influence dismissal, do not necessarily make a dismissal unfair.

The claimant, an engineering supervisor employed by the respondent, was dismissed for gross misconduct following an electric shock caused by a damaged forklift-charger cable. The respondent concluded that he knew of the fault, failed to ensure that the charger was locked out and safe, and later signed a permit indicating that the area was safe without inspecting it.

The Employment Tribunal rejected his unfair-dismissal complaint. It held that the investigation and disciplinary process were fair, notwithstanding that the investigator and note-taker had each provided evidence, CCTV evidence was supplied shortly before the disciplinary hearing, and a manager may have made a preliminary comment about his future employment.

The claimant appealed on perversity grounds. The central issue was whether those features required the Tribunal to find the dismissal unfair.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the respondent had dismissed the claimant for conduct, a potentially fair reason, and that dismissal was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

2. The statutory question is whether the employer acted reasonably, in all the circumstances and in accordance with equity and the substantial merits, in treating the established reason as sufficient for dismissal. The range of reasonable responses prevents substitution by a tribunal, but does not displace the statutory test or turn fairness into procedural box-ticking.

3. Fairness in a misconduct case requires substantive industrial fairness. The employee must know the charge, have a fair opportunity to answer it, and have the allegation determined in good faith. The process must be assessed as a whole, from investigation through any appeal. A fundamentally unfair process cannot be made fair merely by invoking a range of reasonable responses.

4. There is no absolute rule that a person with some involvement in events cannot investigate them. An independent investigator is desirable and, in some circumstances, necessary. Here, however, the investigator was not the disciplinary decision-maker, his witness evidence was minor, and the claimant did not challenge his account or prior involvement during the process. The Tribunal was entitled to find no fundamental breach of natural justice.

5. The note-taker's limited involvement as a witness likewise did not require a finding of unfairness. The late CCTV report concerned an allegation already put to the claimant; he did not object to its use or seek further time. The eventual finding about the permit was not materially different from the charge.

6. Although a comment that the claimant might not return to the business was unwise, the persons who might have made it neither decided nor influenced the dismissal. It did not make the overall process unfair. No error of law, still less perversity, was established.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2026] EAT 8.
• Employment Tribunal: The unfair-dismissal complaint was dismissed following a hearing before Employment Judge J M Wade sitting with lay members. Written reasons were provided at the EAT's request. No citation was stated.