Mr W Vignakumar v Churchill Group Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Hand,Mr D Bleiman,Mr B Warman |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0222/12/LA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal,Unfair Dismissal - Compensation,Not landmark |
| Date | 26 June 2013 |
| Published date | 04 October 2017 |
Copyright 2013
Appeal No. UKEAT/0222/12/LA
UKEAT/0475/12/LA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON, EC4Y 8JX
At the Tribunal
On 22 October 2012
Judgment handed down on 26 June 2013
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAND QC
MR D BLEIMAN
MR B WARMAN
UKEAT/0222/12/LA
MR W VIGNAKUMAR APPELLANT
CHURCHILL GROUP LTD RESPONDENT
UKEAT/0475/12/LA
CHURCHILL GROUP LTD APPELLANT
MR W VIGNAKUMAR RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0222/12/LA
UKEAT/0475/12/LA
APPEARANCES
For Mr W Vignakumar MS KATHRYN DUFF
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
North Ford Solicitors
74 North Street
Romford
Essex
RM1 1DA
For Churchill Group Ltd MR CHARLES SPARLING
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Wedlake Bell
52 Bedford Row
London
WC1R 4LR
UKEAT/0222/12/LA
UKEAT/0475/12/LA
SUMMARY
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
When an employee has been unfairly dismissed and/or discriminated against unlawfully by
being dismissed and it is alleged by the employer it has been discovered since the dismissal that
s/he had been guilty of gross misconduct during the employment, the Employment Tribunal
does not have to find as a fact that the employee had committed the misconduct and in the
instant appeal there was no error on the part of the Employment Tribunal by not doing so. In
such circumstances the Employment Tribunal must consider whether the employee would have
been dismissed by reason of the alleged misconduct, and, if so, when. Then it must consider
whether such a dismissal would have been fair, adopting the approach suggested by the Court
of Appeal in Panama v London Borough of Hackney [2003] IRLR 278. This was what the
Employment Tribunal had done and, there being no misdirection, no inadequacy of reasoning
and no perversity, the Claimant’s appeal would be dismissed. In reaching that conclusion the
Employment Appeal Tribunal also considered O’Dea v ISC Chemicals Ltd [1996] ICR 222,
King and others v Eaton [No. 2] [1998] IRLR 686, O’Donoghue v Redcar and Cleveland
Borough Council [2001] IRLR 615, Gover v Propertycare Ltd [2006] ICR 1073, Thornett v
Scope [2007] ICR 236 and Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews and others [2007] ICR 825.
It was not open to the Respondent to appeal the liability judgment through the medium of an
appeal against the remedies judgment but if it was the appeal would have been dismissed.
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle [2011] IRLR 604 and Software
2000 Ltd v Andrews and others do not preclude an Employment Tribunal from making an
award on a percentage basis where the Employment Tribunal think it is more than 50% likely
that the dismissal would have been fair.
To continue reading
Request your trial