N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust
[2022] EAT 204
Kemsley v Cambridgeshire County Council
20 November 2024
[2024] EAT 180
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An employment tribunal dismissed a woman's claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination. A higher court (EAT) disagreed, saying the tribunal's decision was too biased toward the employer and didn't properly consider the employee's side. The case will be heard again by a different tribunal.
Key Facts
- •Sue Kemsley (Appellant) was employed by Cambridgeshire County Council (Respondent) from February 2007.
- •Kemsley's employment ended in October 2019 following a redundancy.
- •Kemsley brought claims for unfair dismissal, victimisation, age discrimination, and harassment.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed all claims.
- •The ET's judgment heavily relied on the Respondent's evidence and submissions, with minimal reference to the Appellant's evidence and submissions.
Legal Principles
Victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
Equality Act 2010
Adequate reasoning in Employment Tribunal decisions (Meek principle)
Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 CA
Fair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Rights Act 1996
'Tainted information' in victimisation claims (Jhuti principle)
Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2019] UKSC 55
Harassment on grounds of sex under the Equality Act 2010
Equality Act 2010
Improper reliance on one party's submissions in ET judgment (IG Markets principle)
IG Markets Ltd v Crinion [2013] EWCA Civ 587
Outcomes
Appeal allowed
The ET's judgment was found to be inadequate due to extensive reliance on the Respondent's submissions, with insufficient consideration of the Appellant's evidence and arguments. The EAT found that the ET did not conduct a proper judicial evaluation of the case.
Claims remitted for rehearing
The EAT concluded that the ET's failure to properly consider the Appellant's case rendered its findings on victimisation, age discrimination, and harassment unsafe. The case was therefore sent back for a new hearing before a differently constituted ET.