Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically unfair reasons) [2013] UKEAT 0068_13_0808 (8 August 2013)
The burden of proof in whistleblowing dismissal claims under s.103A ERA, where the employee lacks sufficient qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal, lies on the employee. The Employment Tribunal's finding that the reason for dismissal was conduct and not whistleblowing was not perverse and is upheld.
- Citation
- [2013] UKEAT 0068_13_0808
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: Mr Peter Ross; Respondent/employer: Eddie Stobart Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 08 August 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Whistleblowing, Burden of Proof
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Peter Ross
Appellant/claimant
Eddie Stobart Ltd
Respondent/employer
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Where does the burden of proof lie in whistleblowing dismissal claims under s.103A ERA when the employee lacks sufficient qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal?
- 2 Was the Employment Tribunal's finding that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not whistleblowing, perverse?
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof in whistleblowing dismissal claims under s.103A ERA, where the employee lacks sufficient qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal, lies on the employee. The Employment Tribunal's finding that the reason for dismissal was conduct and not whistleblowing was not perverse and is upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment