Mr C Mbubaegbu v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Choudhury |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0218/17/JOJ |
| Subject Matter | Contract of Employment,Practice,Procedure,Race Discrimination,Unfair Dismissal,Contract of Employment - Wrongful dismissal,Procedure - Admissibility of evidence,Procedure - Review,Race Discrimination - Burden of proof,Race Discrimination - Direct,Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination,Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal,Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Date | 18 May 2018 |
Copyright 2018
Appeal No. UKEAT/0218/17/JOJ
UKEAT/0306/17/JOJ
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 22 & 23 February 2018
Judgment handed down on 18 May 2018
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
(SITTING ALONE)
MR C MBUBAEGBU APPELLANT
HOMERTON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Amended
UKEAT/0218/17/JOJ
UKEAT/0306/17/JOJ
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR GERARD McDERMOTT
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
and
MS NAOMI CUNNINGHAM
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Bates Wells Braithwaite LLP
10 Queen Street Place
London
EC4R 1BE
For the Respondent MR ROBERT MORETTO
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Capsticks Solicitors LLP
1 St Georges Road
Wimbledon
London
SW19 4DR
UKEAT/0218/17/JOJ
UKEAT/0306/17/JOJ
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Admissibility of evidence
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Review
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - Wrongful dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL - Reasonableness of dismissal
RACE DISCRIMINATION - Direct
RACE DISCRIMINATION - Inferring discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION - Burden of proof
The Tribunal did not err in determining that the dismissal of a Black African Consultant for a
first offence was not unfair. The Respondent’s reliance upon a pattern of conduct giving rise to
concerns about patient safety as a sufficient reason to dismiss was within the range of
reasonable responses notwithstanding the fact that there was no single act that could be said to
amount to gross misconduct.
However, the Tribunal did err in concluding that the dismissal was not wrongful as it had failed
to make the necessary findings of fact for itself to establish that the Claimant’s conduct
amounted to a repudiatory breach.
There was no error in concluding that the Claimant had not been discriminated against. The
Tribunal’s approach to the evidentiary matters relied upon as giving rise to an inference of
discrimination was not ‘fragmentary’ as is apparent from a fair reading of the whole judgment.
The decision not to reconsider its judgment in the light of new evidence from the GMC that no
action should be taken against the Claimant was not perverse. The Tribunal was required to
consider different matters f rom t hose which concerned the GMC and the latter’s conclusions
were unlikely to have had a material influence on the outcome.
To continue reading
Request your trial