Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find the dismissal unfair based on lack of training on the new health and safety procedure, previous condonation of the claimant's conduct, and unjustified disparity in treatment compared to another employee. There was no error of law, and the EAT should not have interfered...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Newbound; Respondent: Thames Water Utilities Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's decision restored
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Health and Safety at Work, Disciplinary Procedures, Disparity of Treatment, Apparent Bias
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Health and Safety at Work Disciplinary Procedures Disparity of Treatment Apparent Bias

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Newbound

Appellant

Thames Water Utilities Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the claimant for breach of health and safety procedures was unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in finding the dismissal unfair and whether the EAT was correct to overturn that finding
  3. 3 Whether there was unjustified disparity in treatment between the claimant and another employee (Mr Andrews)

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find the dismissal unfair based on lack of training on the new health and safety procedure, previous condonation of the claimant's conduct, and unjustified disparity in treatment compared to another employee. There was no error of law, and the EAT should not have interfered with the Tribunal's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's decision restored

Orders

  • Order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal set aside
  • Decision of Employment Judge Bedeau that the claimant's dismissal was unfair restored, subject to a finding of 40% contributory conduct