Sheridan v British Telecommunications Plc [1989] EWCA Civ 14 (14 November 1989)

Sheridan v British Telecommunications Plc [1989] EWCA Civ 14 (14 November 1989)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in substituting its own view of the facts for that of the Industrial Tribunal, which was entitled to make the findings it did. There was no error of law or perversity in the Industrial Tribunal's decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating findings of fact unless there is no evidence to support them or they are perverse.

Citation
[1989] EWCA Civ 14
Parties
Respondent (applicant): Robert John Sheridan; Appellant (respondent): British Telecommunications PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 1989
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Implied Term of Trust and Confidence, Jurisdiction of Employment Appeal Tribunal, Error of Law Vs Error of Fact
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Implied Term of Trust and Confidence Jurisdiction of Employment Appeal Tribunal Error of Law Vs Error of Fact

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Sheridan

Respondent (applicant)

British Telecommunications PLC

Appellant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal was entitled to overturn the Industrial Tribunal's decision on the basis of misunderstanding or misapplication of facts
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Tribunal's findings amounted to an error of law or were perverse
  3. 3 Whether cumulative conduct by the employer constituted a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence amounting to constructive dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in substituting its own view of the facts for that of the Industrial Tribunal, which was entitled to make the findings it did. There was no error of law or perversity in the Industrial Tribunal's decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating findings of fact unless there is no evidence to support them or they are perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Costs to be taxed if not agreed