Peninsula Business Services Ltd v. Rees & Ors [2011] UKEAT 0407_10_2104 (21 April 2011)

Peninsula Business Services Ltd v. Rees & Ors [2011] UKEAT 0407_10_2104 (21 April 2011)

The dismissals were automatically unfair because the respondent failed to complete Step 2 of the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure, specifically by not providing sufficient information to the claimants about their redundancy selection scores in advance of the consultation meeting, thereby denying them a reasonable opportunity to respond. This breach could not be cured by the appeal process. Even considering ordinary unfair dismissal, the process lacked transparency and adequate consultation, and the respondent failed to prove that the claimants would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0407_10_2104
Parties
Respondent: Peninsula; Claimant: Mr I G Rees; Claimant: Mr J McLachlan; Claimant: Mr F Jaffier
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
21 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; finding of unfair dismissal upheld.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Employment Rights Act 1996, Statutory Dismissal Procedures, Automatic Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Employment Rights Act 1996 Statutory Dismissal Procedures Automatic Unfair 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peninsula

Respondent

Mr I G Rees

Claimant

Mr J McLachlan

Claimant

Mr F Jaffier

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were automatically unfairly dismissed for redundancy due to failure to complete statutory dismissal procedures
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal process was fair under section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether defects in procedure could be cured by appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissals were automatically unfair because the respondent failed to complete Step 2 of the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure, specifically by not providing sufficient information to the claimants about their redundancy selection scores in advance of the consultation meeting, thereby denying them a reasonable opportunity to respond. This breach could not be cured by the appeal process. Even considering ordinary unfair dismissal, the process lacked transparency and adequate consultation, and the respondent failed to prove that the claimants would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; finding of unfair dismissal upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal against the finding of unfair dismissal in each of the three cases is dismissed.
  • Remedy hearing to be conducted to determine compensation.