Donna Edinboro v Jamma Umoja (Residential Services) Ltd
[2024] EAT 61
Quorous Slater v Allen Ford UK Ltd
6 August 2024
[2024] EAT 139
Employment Appeal Tribunal
An employee was fired and the initial court threw out her case. A higher court reviewed the decision and said the first court didn't properly look at the employee's evidence. The higher court reinstated one part of her case and sent the other two parts back to the initial court to be reviewed properly.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Quorous Slater (claimant/appellant) was dismissed from Allen Ford UK Ltd (respondent) for gross misconduct (unauthorized use of a police fuel card).
- •Slater filed a wide-ranging employment tribunal claim, acting as a litigant in person.
- •The tribunal struck out all of Slater's complaints at a preliminary hearing.
- •Slater appealed to the EAT, focusing on three complaints: unfair dismissal due to protected disclosures, direct sex discrimination, and breach of contract ('forced overtime').
Legal Principles
Rule 37(1)(a) – Striking out a claim with no reasonable prospect of success. Tribunals must take the claimant's case at its highest, assuming facts will be found as claimed, unless there is a clear conflict with undisputed evidence or the claim is inherently implausible.
Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330; ED&F Mann Liquid Products Limited v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472; Cox v Adecco Group [2021] ICR 1307
Unfair dismissal due to protected disclosures – The employer must show a potentially fair reason for dismissal; the claimant must then show that the reason was not the true reason. The claimant must produce evidence casting doubt on the employer's stated reason (Kuzel v Roche Products).
Kuzel v Roche Products [2008] ICR 799; Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55
Direct sex discrimination – The dismissal must have been materially influenced by the claimant's sex, even if not the main reason.
None explicitly cited, but implied throughout the sections discussing sex discrimination.
Implied terms in contracts – A term can be implied if it is necessary or arises from custom and practice (Driver v Air India).
Driver v Air India Limited [2011] IRLR 992
Outcomes
Appeal allowed for all three complaints.
The EAT found the tribunal erred in striking out the complaints because it failed to consider the claimant's case at its highest, particularly regarding factual disputes, and made material errors in its assessment of the evidence.
Protected disclosures unfair dismissal claim: EAT substituted a decision refusing to strike out.
The EAT found the tribunal's assessment of the timing of the disclosures and the claimant's initial denial of fuel card use were materially flawed and failed to consider the claimant's explanation and evidence.
Direct sex discrimination and breach of contract claims: Remitted to the tribunal.
The EAT deemed that these claims require further clarification from the claimant and a more thorough examination of the legal principles, which the tribunal had not properly undertaken.