Andras Szucs v Greensquare Group Ltd
[2024] EAT 160
R Meshram v Entserv UK Limited
28 September 2023
[2023] EAT 126
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Meshram was fired, claiming it was because he'd sued his old company. A judge said the firing wasn't unfair, but the handling of his appeal was poorly explained, so that part needs to be looked at again by the same judge.
Key Facts
- •Mr Meshram (Claimant) was dismissed shortly after starting employment with Entserv UK Limited (Respondent).
- •The dismissal was allegedly due to Mr Meshram misleading Mr Nagra (Entserv manager) during the recruitment process regarding his previous employment with Tata Consultancy Services Limited (Tata).
- •Mr Meshram brought victimisation claims against Entserv, alleging that his dismissal and the subsequent handling of his internal appeal were linked to his prior Equality Act claim against Tata.
- •The Employment Tribunal dismissed Mr Meshram's victimisation claims.
- •Mr Nagra learned of Mr Meshram's claim against Tata before the dismissal, but the Tribunal found this was not the reason for dismissal.
- •The Tribunal found Mr Nagra's evidence about not forwarding Mr Meshram's appeal email to HR 'hard to believe'.
Legal Principles
Victimisation requires a causal link between a protected act and the impugned conduct; the protected act must be 'a reason' for the conduct.
Equality Act 2010, Section 136
Perversity appeals require a high threshold; appellate courts cannot easily overturn findings of fact.
Various case law (FAGE UK Limited v Chobani UK Limited [2014] EWCA 5, Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464)
Tribunals must provide sufficient reasons to explain their decisions, allowing parties to understand how key disputes were resolved.
Meek v City of Birmingham DC [1987] EWCA Civ 9; English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 605
A tribunal is not required to address every piece of evidence or argument presented.
FAGE UK Limited v Chobani UK Limited [2014] EWCA 5, Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
Outcomes
Appeal regarding victimisation claim related to dismissal dismissed.
The Tribunal's decision was not perverse and adequately explained why Mr Nagra's knowledge of the protected act did not influence the dismissal decision. Resolving the conflicting evidence about the source of Mr Nagra's information wasn't necessary to determine the key issues.
Appeal regarding victimisation claim related to failure to process the appeal allowed.
The Tribunal's decision was non-Meek compliant due to a lack of clear findings regarding the burden of proof and a positive explanation for Mr Nagra's failure to act on the appeal email. The case was remitted for further consideration by the same tribunal.
Appeal regarding dismissal remitted for further consideration.
A different outcome on the appeal-email complaint could potentially affect the dismissal complaint.