Beedell v West Ferry Printers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS,LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY,LORD JUSTICE MAY |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 400 |
| Docket Number | A1/2000/2676/A |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 15 March 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 400
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Aldous
Lord Justice May
Lord Justice Mummery
A1/2000/2676/A
A1/2000/2676
MR G MILLAR QC (Instructed by Messrs Russell Jones & Walker, London WC1X 8DH) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR J SWIFT (Instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons, London EC2Y 9SS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
I will ask Lord Justice Mummery to give the first judgment.
There are before the court, first, an application to set aside permission to appeal to this court granted by Lord Justice May on 15th September 2000; and, secondly, the appeal brought with that permission, being an appeal by Mr Beedell against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 7th July 2000 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal on 14th December 1999 dismissed Mr Beedell's complaints of unfair dismissal and dismissal for trade union activities. The finding of the Employment Tribunal in his favour on an issue of wrongful dismissal was reversed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing a cross-appeal by his former employers, West Ferry Printers Ltd.
The background to the claims can be very shortly stated. West Ferry Printers carry on the business of providing printing services. Mr Beedell was an employee. He was dismissed from their employment on 29th September 1998 with effect from 5th October following a violent incident.
The question for decision today is in essence a procedural one following on the decision of this court in Foley on 31st July 2000; i.e. after the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but before the application for permission to appeal against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal was considered on paper by Lord Justice May.
In deciding Mr Beedell's claim the Employment Tribunal explained in their extended reasons of 14th December 1999 that, applying the conventional range of reasonable responses test West Ferry Printers had acted reasonably in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case in dismissing Mr Beedell. As explained in paragraph 51 of the extended reasons:
"In so doing, we also concluded (to adopt the words of Dillon LJ in Gilham & Others v Kent County Council (No 2) [1985] ICR 233) `What the employer did is not what we ourselves would have done, but we cannot say that it was unreasonable.'"
The Tribunal went on say at paragraph 52 that:
"this is one of the `marginal cases' referred to by Morison J in Haddon v van den Bergh Foods Ltd [1999] IRLR 672 `where a decision not to dismiss would be reasonable and a decision to dismiss would also be reasonable'."
What happened in Foley was that a challenge was mounted to the conventional range of reasonable responses approach. The history of the controversy is set out in the judgment given on 31st July 2000 in the cases of Foley v Post Office and HSBC Bank Plc (formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden [2000] ICR 1283. The effect of that unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal was that, as far as the Court of Appeal and all lower courts and tribunals are concerned, the range of reasonable responses test is the subject of binding authority. The application of a different test by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Haddon v van den Bergh Foods Ltd [1999] ICR 1150 was disapproved.
The decision in Foley was not drawn to the attention of Lord Justice May when the application for permission was made. He granted permission to appeal unaware of the decision. That led Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
-
Mr Andrew Sell v Victoria Park Motor Company Ltd: 1600175/2018
...[1980] ICR 303 EAT; Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v. Jones [1993] ICR 17 EAT; Beedell v. West Ferry Printers Ltd [2000] IRLR 650 EAT and [2001] ICR 962 CA; the joined appeals of Foley v. Post Office and Midland Bank plc v. Madden [2000] IRLR 82 CA; and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v. Hitt [2......
-
S Hippolyte v House of Commons Commission: 2206663/2018
...Burchell [1980] ICR 303 EAT; Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1993] ICR 17 EAT; Beedell v Westferry Printers Ltd [2000] IRLR 650 EAT and [2001] ICR 962 CA, and Foley v Post Office / Midland Bank plc v Madden IRLR 82 CA. 114. In considering the question of reasonableness, we must analyse wh......
-
Glenys Goodenough and Another v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
... ... DIVISION Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester, M60 9DJ ... THE HON. Mr Justice Turner ... Case ... 17 In Beedell v West Ferry Printers Limited [2001] C.P. Rep. 83 the Court of Appeal ... ...