Lewisham v. James [2003] UKEAT 0581_03_1612 (16 December 2003)

Lewisham v. James [2003] UKEAT 0581_03_1612 (16 December 2003)

The Tribunal erred in failing to consider what would have happened if the employer had properly attempted to negotiate a transfer to a non-caring job, as required by its disciplinary code, and whether Ms James would have accepted such a job. The Tribunal also erred in reducing compensation for contributory fault without identifying and proving specific actions of the complainant that contributed to the dismissal. The matter must be remitted for reconsideration of these issues.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0581_03_1612
Parties
Appellant/respondent: London Borough of Lewisham; Respondent/appellant: Ms James
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision on Liability and Remedy
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal on liability allowed; matter remitted to Tribunal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Contributory Fault, Remedies, Constructive Dismissal, Mitigation of Loss
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Contributory Fault Remedies Constructive Dismissal Mitigation of Loss

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Lewisham

Appellant/respondent

Ms James

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision on Liability and Remedy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of Ms James was unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its assessment of contributory fault and compensation
  3. 3 Whether proper procedure was followed in the dismissal and transfer process

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in failing to consider what would have happened if the employer had properly attempted to negotiate a transfer to a non-caring job, as required by its disciplinary code, and whether Ms James would have accepted such a job. The Tribunal also erred in reducing compensation for contributory fault without identifying and proving specific actions of the complainant that contributed to the dismissal. The matter must be remitted for reconsideration of these issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal on liability allowed; matter remitted to Tribunal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Remit to Employment Tribunal to consider what would have happened if proper negotiation for transfer had occurred and whether Ms James would have accepted a non-caring job.
  • Remit to Tribunal to reconsider contributory fault, requiring identification and proof of any actions by Ms James contributing to dismissal.