Guy Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd
[2024] EAT 38
Andras Szucs v Greensquare Group Ltd
15 August 2024
[2024] EAT 160
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Andras lost his job and claimed his boss fired him because he complained (protected act). The first court said he wasn't fired because of his complaints. The appeals court said the first court didn't explain its decision clearly enough, so they sent it back to the first court to try again.
Key Facts
- •Andras Szucs (claimant/appellant) was dismissed by Greensquare Group Ltd (respondent) after less than two years of service.
- •Szucs had made several grievances, some relating to protected acts under the Equality Act 2010.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed Szucs's victimisation claim.
- •The dismissal was without procedure or warning, following perceived deterioration in performance and attendance.
- •The decision-maker, Mr. Lillis (HR Business Partner), did not give evidence at the ET.
- •The ET relied on contemporaneous documents, including a synopsis by Mr. Lillis and a transcript of a recorded conversation, to determine the reasons for dismissal.
Legal Principles
Causation in victimisation claims under Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 requires the protected act to be an effective or substantial cause of the detriment, not necessarily the sole or principal cause. It must be a significant influence.
Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572, Warburton v The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [2022] EAT 42, Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2011] ICR 476
The burden of proof shifts to the respondent under Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 if there are facts suggesting a contravention, unless the respondent shows they did not contravene the provision.
Equality Act 2010, Section 136
The 'separability principle' in Martin v Devonshires Solicitors [2011] ICR 352 is a fact-finding exercise to determine if reasons for detriment are separate from protected acts. It's not a rule of law, and is an exceptional case.
Martin v Devonshires Solicitors [2011] ICR 352, Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Limited [2022] EWCA Civ 941
On appeal, the EAT should read the ET's reasons as a whole, avoid hypercriticism, and presume correct application of the law unless clearly shown otherwise.
DPP Law Limited v Greenberg [2021] IRLR 1016
Reasons must be Meek compliant; the claimant must understand why they lost.
Meek v City of Birmingham District Council
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The ET's reasons were not Meek compliant because they lacked clarity on whether the protected acts played any part in the dismissal decision. While the ET correctly stated the legal test for causation, its application to the facts was unclear, particularly regarding the separability of the 'complainer' element from the protected acts. The ET failed to clearly explain why evidence supporting the claimant's case was rejected.
Case remitted to the same ET.
Remittal to the same ET is proportionate. The ET is familiar with the facts, the findings of fact are largely unchallenged, and there is no evidence of bias or closed minds. The claimant's arguments regarding disability and difficulty facing the same ET were not supported by sufficient evidence.