header-logo header-logo

02 April 2009 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7363 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Procedure & practice , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment: Overstepping the mark

Tribunals should not stray beyond their core remit. Chris Bryden & Michael Salter explain why

It is a well-established and longstanding principle of employment law that, when faced with a misconduct dismissal, an employment tribunal must not substitute its own view of the claimant's alleged conduct for that taken by the employer's disciplinary panel.

This is because it is not the tribunal's role to decide what it would have done had its members been sitting in the disciplinary hearing. Rather, it is the function of the tribunal to determine whether or not in coming to its decision the employer acted reasonably. As Mr Justice Pugsley stated in London Borough of Sutton v Kester UKEAT/0187/06/MAA (2006): “The substitution by a tribunal of its view of the matter, as opposed to looking at whether the Respondent's actions were within the range of reasonable responses, is not an empty legalistic forma. It goes to the very heart of the function of a Tribunal. Tribunals have neither the experience or the expertise nor the information

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

Nick Vernon of Walkers on swapping Birmingham for Bermuda and building an employment practice by the sea

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Global firm re-elects CEO for second term

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Business appoints managing director of operational excellence

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll