Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd

Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd

The EAT erred in law by substituting its own decision on victimisation rather than remitting the case to the ET, as it was not inevitable that the ET, properly directing itself, would have reached only one outcome. The issue of whether the relocation was by reason of the protected act required factual evaluation by the ET.

Parties
Appellant: Gary Burrell; Respondent: Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Unfair Dismissal, Remittal Procedure, Race Discrimination
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation Unfair Dismissal Remittal Procedure Race Discrimination

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Burrell

Appellant

Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law by not remitting the victimisation claim to the Employment Tribunal after identifying a legal error
  2. 2 Whether the EAT was entitled to substitute its own decision instead of remitting the case
  3. 3 Whether the EAT should also have remitted the unfair dismissal claim

Ratio Decidendi

The EAT erred in law by substituting its own decision on victimisation rather than remitting the case to the ET, as it was not inevitable that the ET, properly directing itself, would have reached only one outcome. The issue of whether the relocation was by reason of the protected act required factual evaluation by the ET.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Employment Tribunal as originally constituted, if possible, to reconsider the issue of victimisation without the previous legal error.
  • If the ET finds for Mr Burrell on victimisation, it must also revisit the question of unfair dismissal.