James Arnold represents successful appellant in Employment Appeal Tribunal re. Kuzel principle

Having found that the relevant decision takers in respect of the Claimant’s dismissal and appeal had in mind both that he had been a nuisance in his campaigning and trade union activities and the fact of his having made protected disclosures, the ET needed to engage with the question which had been the real reason or principal reason for the dismissal?

Although it had stated it had found that the reason for dismissal had been the Claimant’s protected disclosures, there was nothing to demonstrate it had considered the alternative – that the decision takers’ view of the Claimant as a nuisance was the principal reason.

On the ET’s findings, however, that had been left as a possibility, notwithstanding its rejection of the Respondent’s positive case on the dismissal having been for a reason related to the Claimant’s conduct or for some other substantial reason (Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530 CA applied).

The appeal would therefore be allowed in this respect and the question of the reason or principal reason for dismissal remitted to the ET.

James Arnold, who was instructed by Capsticks, acted for the appellant.

The full decision may can found here.

News 1 Jun, 2018