Anglian Home Improvements Ltd v Kelly

Anglian Home Improvements Ltd v Kelly

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the objective range of reasonable responses test and by substituting its own views for those of a reasonable employer. On the facts found, only one conclusion was possible: that a reasonable employer could summarily dismiss Mr Kelly for gross misconduct. The Tribunal's majority decision was perverse and cannot stand.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Anglian Home Improvements Limited; Respondent/applicant: Chris Kelly
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
appeal allowed; claim for unfair dismissal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Gross Misconduct, Disciplinary Procedures, Perversity, Range of Reasonable Responses
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Gross Misconduct Disciplinary Procedures Perversity Range of Reasonable Responses

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anglian Home Improvements Limited

Appellant/respondent

Chris Kelly

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal applied the correct legal test for unfair dismissal (the range of reasonable responses test)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal substituted its own views for those of a reasonable employer
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary procedures and ACAS Code of Practice were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the objective range of reasonable responses test and by substituting its own views for those of a reasonable employer. On the facts found, only one conclusion was possible: that a reasonable employer could summarily dismiss Mr Kelly for gross misconduct. The Tribunal's majority decision was perverse and cannot stand.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; claim for unfair dismissal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Mr Kelly's claim for unfair dismissal dismissed