Stewart v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1527 (09 December 2015)

Stewart v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1527 (09 December 2015)

There was no arguable error of law in the Employment Tribunal's findings that the dismissal was for misconduct and not discriminatory or procedurally unfair. The refusal to grant an extension of time for appeal was justified given the applicant's lack of good excuse for delay.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1527
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Stewart; Defendant/respondent: Royal Mail Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (reconsideration at Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Race Discrimination, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Race Discrimination Extension of Time Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stewart

Claimant/applicant

Royal Mail Group Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (reconsideration at Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in dismissing the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the disciplinary process
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to grant an extension of time for appeal was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable error of law in the Employment Tribunal's findings that the dismissal was for misconduct and not discriminatory or procedurally unfair. The refusal to grant an extension of time for appeal was justified given the applicant's lack of good excuse for delay.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both applications for permission to appeal are refused