Guy Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Susan Walker,Mr Nick Aziz,Mr Steven Torrance |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 25 March 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 38
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 38
Case No: EA-2022-001335-BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 25 March 2024
Before :
JUDGE SUSAN WALKER
MR NICK AZIZ
MR STEVEN TORRANCE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
GUY MATTHEWS Appellant
- and -
CGI IT UK LTD Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR AMEER ISMAIL (instructed by Judge Sykes Frixou Ltd) for the Appellant
MS JEN COYNE (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 30 – 31 January 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 38
SUMMARY
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – FAIRNESS OF PROCEDURE; VICTIMISATION; BURDEN OF
PROOF; AND EXTENSION OF TIME
The claimant was dismissed without a written warning and he was not offered an appeal. The ET
accepted that the reason was the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the claimant
and the respondent. The ET’s decision to dismiss the claims of unfair dismissal and victimisation
(in respect of the dismissal) was appealed. The ET’s decision to refuse to extend time to present
a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was also appealed.
Held:
The ET was entitled to find that this was one of the rare cases referred to in Polkey where a
dismissal may be fair although there has been no formal procedure. The ET did not
impermissibly consider what would have happened if a warning had been given or an appeal
allowed and they did not apply the wrong test of whether either would be likely to have made a
difference. Read as a whole, it was clear that the ET had correctly considered matters from the
perspective of the respondent at the time and concluded that it was reasonable for the respondent
to dismiss without a warning or an appeal as these would be futile.
The ET’s finding that it was reasonable for the respondent not to further explore mediation was
clearly one that was available to it in light of its findings that the claimant had adopted an
entrenched stance that his manager had to be penalised.
The ET had correctly applied Turner v Vestric. Although the respondent had made a mistake in
the initial stages of the redundancy process, the ET had found that the respondent was genuine in
its attempts to rebuild trust and keep the claimant employed and had put significant and genuine
effort in that direction.
The ET’s approach to the burden of proof was not in error. They were entitled to apply Hewage
and consider and accept the respondent’s reason for dismissal. Although there was an error in
one sentence relating to causation for victimisation, this was in the section dealing with
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd
© EAT 2024 Page 3 [2024] EAT 38
detriment and the correct test was stated and clearly applied in relation to the alleged
victimisation of dismissal.
The ET did not err in its approach to the just and equitable extension under section 123 of the
EqA.
To continue reading
Request your trial