Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In Uddin v London Borough of Ealing [2020] UKEAT/0165/19/RN the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the case of Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti (our analysis of Jhuti here) and extended it to cover the reasonableness of a decision to dismiss as well as the reason.

The facts in Uddin v London Borough of Ealing

Mr Uddin (the ‘Claimant’) worked for the London Borough of Ealing (the ‘Respondent’).  He was dismissed for gross misconduct for behaving inappropriately towards an intern at after work drinks in a pub. The intern alleged that the Claimant had dragged her to the toilet and assaulted her.

After the investigation but before the disciplinary hearing, the investigating officer learned that an allegation of sexual assault made about the incident to the police by the intern had been withdrawn. The investigating officer never told the dismissing officer this piece of information and the dismissing officer relied in part on the fact that a complaint had been made to the police when preferring the complainant’s account of events.

The Claimant brought various complaints in the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) including unfair dismissal.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The ET concluded that the dismissal was fair, notwithstanding the fact that the dismissing officer was never advised the complaint had been withdrawn.  They held that there was sufficient evidence before the dismissing manager to decide the Claimant was guilty of misconduct even though a complaint to the police had not been made.

The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (‘EAT’),

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The EAT allowed the Claimant’s appeal.

The Claimant representatives argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti meant the investigating officer’s knowledge that the police complaint had been withdrawn should have been attributed to the Respondent as the employer in deciding on the Claimant’s dismissal.

The EAT held stated that Jhuti was concerned with situations where a manager had manipulated evidence or where the investigating officer had a different reason for acting from the dismissing officer, but the principles established by the Supreme Court in the case were broader.

Jhuti extended more widely in that the knowledge or conduct of a person other than the person who actually decided to dismiss could be relevant both in relation to consideration of the reason for dismissal and/or its consideration of the reasonablenessof the decision to dismiss for the given reason (as in the Claimant’s case).  As a result, the investigating officer’s failure to share a material fact with the dismissing manager was relevant to the consideration of whether the dismissal was fair.  

In the Claimant’s case the dismissing officer knew there had been a police complaint and had attached some weight to that fact in deciding to dismiss. She had also stated that had she known of the withdrawal of the complaint she would have wanted to understand the reason for it. She had made a decision on behalf of her employer without the benefit of clearly relevant knowledge which the employer had in its possession.

The EAT held that if the ET had approached the issue correctly, it would have found the Claimant’s dismissal was unfair.  The EAT therefore substituted a finding of unfair dismissal.  

Our solicitors’ views on the case of Uddin v London Borough of Ealing

Sacha Barrett, a Senior Associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comments on the case: “This case emphasises the importance of a dismissing officer being provided with all of the relevant information known by the employer when being asked to make a decision on whether or not to dismiss an employee.  As a failure to do so could result in a finding of unfair dismissal, it makes sense to ensure investigating officers understand their duties do not necessarily end once the decision to decision to proceed with a disciplinary process has been made.’

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Uddin v London Borough of Ealing [2020] UKEAT/0165/19/RN can be found here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your first name (required)

Your last name (required)

Your email (required)

Your telephone number (required)

Brief details of your enquiry

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.75 Average

193 Reviews

Mark W

Most professional from start to finish offering very a personal service. Most impressive and quick when dealing with the matters in hand.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Posted 4 weeks ago

submit

I am very glad I came across Redmans Solicitors. Fantastic service!

Posted 4 weeks ago

Anonymous

Fantastic communication, always happy to answer queries, highly recommended.

Posted 4 weeks ago

Wavenie B

They were very straight to the point, friendly and understanding people. I felt they had my best interest. They were easy to get hold of, replies were almost instant. 5/5 for customer service

Posted 4 weeks ago

Christina P

Caroline was fantastic to work with - extremely knowledgeable, supportive, thorough and honest. I definitely recommend Redmans!

Posted 4 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very well done and fast support. Professional and reliable. Highly recommended!

Posted 4 weeks ago

Helene L

They were very knowledgable in the respected area in terms of change in law/regulations that is crucial for the clients who are seeking for legal arvice.

Posted 1 month ago

Sara R

Very helpful and wonderful advice

Posted 1 month ago

Marie D

very good service all digitalised

Posted 1 month ago

Philip H

Chris Hadrill handled my case with great accuracy and efficiency. Basically made it feel like a process without hassle. Doesn't try to expand the case just for greater fees. I value his professional advice highly.

Posted 1 month ago

Michael W

Professional, responsive and supportive - excellent service!

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I was really happy with the service provided. I had to chase a couple of time but despite that, my matter was dealt with in a timely manor. I would use again in the future

Posted 1 month ago

Lee M

Superb service and always available

Posted 1 month ago

Jonathan S

I was very grateful for the support I received from Redmans during a very difficult period. Rana Tandon really got under the skin of my issue and understood what was important to me, steering me carefully and sensibly to an outcome I was very happy with. I would recommend Redmans to anyone else without any reservations whatsoever.

Posted 1 month ago

Mohamed A

Super helpful and efficient, trustworthy service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

efficient, responsive and effective

Posted 1 month ago

Andrew B

Very good service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Excellent service, compassionate and a good outcome

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I had an employment issue which required legal advice. Chris was very supportive and knowledgeable, resulting in an optimum resolution in my favour. Would definitely recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

David M

Very professional and first-rate advice. I would use again. With thanks,

Posted 1 month ago