James v Gina Shoes Ltd & Ors (Unfair Dismissal : Contributory fault) [2012] UKEAT 0384_11_1801 (18 January 2012)

James v Gina Shoes Ltd & Ors (Unfair Dismissal : Contributory fault) [2012] UKEAT 0384_11_1801 (18 January 2012)

The Employment Tribunal erred by making a finding of contributory fault without giving the parties an opportunity to address the issue and by failing to apply the correct legal test of culpable or blameworthy conduct. The Tribunal also erred in its application of the burden of proof in age discrimination, as the remarks made by the Managing Director were sufficient to establish a prima facie case, shifting the burden to the respondent.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0384_11_1801
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr James; Respondent/employer: [Respondent Company]
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Contributory Fault, Age Discrimination, Constructive Dismissal
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Contributory Fault Age Discrimination Constructive Dismissal

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr James

Appellant/claimant

[Respondent Company]

Respondent/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in making a finding of contributory fault without giving parties an opportunity to address the issue
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal applied the correct legal test for contributory conduct
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its application of the burden of proof in age discrimination under the Igen test

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred by making a finding of contributory fault without giving the parties an opportunity to address the issue and by failing to apply the correct legal test of culpable or blameworthy conduct. The Tribunal also erred in its application of the burden of proof in age discrimination, as the remarks made by the Managing Director were sufficient to establish a prima facie case, shifting the burden to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • The appeal against the finding of contributory fault is allowed.
  • The appeal against the dismissal of the age discrimination complaint is allowed.