Ogedegbe v Stag Security Serrvice Ltd (Unfair Dismissal) [2012] UKEAT 0001_12_1405 (14 May 2012)

Ogedegbe v Stag Security Serrvice Ltd (Unfair Dismissal) [2012] UKEAT 0001_12_1405 (14 May 2012)

It was not appropriate for the Employment Judge, upon preliminary consideration of a review application under rule 35(3), to decide on paper a disputed question of fact as to whether documents were forged. The Judge's conclusion that the emails were forged was not sufficiently supported and should not have been made without giving the Claimant an opportunity to respond. This error vitiated the decision on that aspect of the review application.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0001_12_1405
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Obhiose Benjamin Ogedegbe; Respondent: Stag Security Services Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Review Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Race Discrimination, Review of Judgment, Fresh Evidence, Forgery Allegation
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Race Discrimination Review of Judgment Fresh Evidence Forgery Allegation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Obhiose Benjamin Ogedegbe

Appellant/claimant

Stag Security Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing the review application based on fresh evidence
  2. 2 Whether it was appropriate for the Employment Judge to determine, on paper, that documents were forged without a hearing

Ratio Decidendi

It was not appropriate for the Employment Judge, upon preliminary consideration of a review application under rule 35(3), to decide on paper a disputed question of fact as to whether documents were forged. The Judge's conclusion that the emails were forged was not sufficiently supported and should not have been made without giving the Claimant an opportunity to respond. This error vitiated the decision on that aspect of the review application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • The decision dated 2 November 2011 is set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the Employment Tribunal for fresh consideration of the review application by a Regional Employment Judge.