Hovis Ltd v Mr W Louton
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 22 November 2021 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down HOVIS LIMITED v MR W LOUTON
Page 1 EA-2020-000973-LA
© EAT 2021
Case No: EA-2020-000973-LA (Previously UKEATPA/1023/20/LA)
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 22 November 2021
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
HOVIS LIMITED Appellant
- and -
MR W LOUTON Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr M White (instructed by Steeles Law) for the Appellant
Mr E Webb (instructed by Pattinson & Brewer) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 7 October 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down HOVIS LIMITED v MR W LOUTON
Page 2 EA-2020-000973-LA
© EAT 2021
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
The claimant in the employment tribunal worked for the respondent as a delivery lorry driver. A
manager, Mr Sittre, reported that, when driving his car on the motorway, accompanied by his wife,
both of them had seen the claimant driving his van on the same stretch of motorway and smoking at
the wheel.
Following an internal disciplinary investigation and process the claimant was found to have been
smoking whilst driving, which was a serious breach of the respondent’s procedures, and dismissed.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not unfa irly dismissed. He did not appeal or cross-appeal
from that decision. The tribunal upheld the claimant’s claim of wrongful dismissal. The respondent
appealed from that decision.
At the hearing in the employment tribunal t he claimant gave evidence in person and denied that he
had been smokin g. Neither Mr Sittre nor Mrs Sittre gave evidence to the tribunal. The tribunal
concluded that it therefore could not find as a fact that the claimant had been smoking. The tribunal
erred by concluding that, in the absence of either Mr or M rs Sittre giving evidence in person, it was
precluded from making such a finding; and by failing to evaluate the hearsay evidence of the
statements that had been gathered from the Sittres in the internal investigation.
The appeal was allowed.
To continue reading
Request your trial