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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll