Kelly v PGA European Tour (UNFAIR DISMISSAL - REMEDY) [2020] UKEAT 0285_18_2608 (26 August 2020)

Kelly v PGA European Tour (UNFAIR DISMISSAL - REMEDY) [2020] UKEAT 0285_18_2608 (26 August 2020)

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider whether the employer genuinely and rationally believed it had lost trust and confidence in the Claimant, and by ordering re-engagement to a role for which the Claimant did not meet an essential requirement (Mandarin language proficiency). The Tribunal also erred in its approach to the Polkey issue by not considering the implications of its earlier findings. The refusal to reconsider based on alleged disclosure failures was upheld, as the law did not require consideration of vacancies filled before the remedy hearing.

Citation
[2020] UKEAT 0285_18_2608
Parties
Respondent/appellant: PGA European Tour; Claimant/respondent: Scott Kelly
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Remedy Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Remedy Decision and Reconsideration Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; re-engagement order set aside; Polkey issue remitted for reconsideration; Claimant's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Remedy, Re Engagement, Reinstatement, Age Discrimination, Disclosure Obligations, Compensation, Polkey Reduction
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Remedy Re Engagement Reinstatement Age Discrimination Disclosure Obligations Compensation +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PGA European Tour

Respondent/appellant

Scott Kelly

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Remedy Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Remedy Decision and Reconsideration Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in ordering re-engagement where the employer claimed loss of trust and confidence and the claimant did not meet an essential job requirement
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal test for practicability of re-engagement
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its approach to the Polkey reduction

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider whether the employer genuinely and rationally believed it had lost trust and confidence in the Claimant, and by ordering re-engagement to a role for which the Claimant did not meet an essential requirement (Mandarin language proficiency). The Tribunal also erred in its approach to the Polkey issue by not considering the implications of its earlier findings. The refusal to reconsider based on alleged disclosure failures was upheld, as the law did not require consideration of vacancies filled before the remedy hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; re-engagement order set aside; Polkey issue remitted for reconsideration; Claimant's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Re-engagement order in favour of the Claimant is set aside.
  • Issue of Polkey reduction remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as part of compensatory award.