|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Devai v London South Bank University  EWCA Civ 807 (24 June 2015)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 807
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY||Respondent|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent was not present and was not represented
Crown Copyright ©
"It wouldn't be a good idea to have a meeting before your interview tomorrow. I can give you an appointment on Monday at 2 P.M., but it would be better to leave the management out. As you can see from Fintan Culwin's memo, he doesn't really want to help you. His purpose is to waste my time, harass and discredit me. If you don't leave them out, I cannot possibly help you. Please let me know what you want to do and don't copy them in your message. Good luck again with your interview."
"Having carefully considered all of the allegations made against you, it is our view that they are substantiated. In our view, there has clearly been an irrevocable breakdown in trust and confidence between you and your managers as a result of your actions. This, together with your repeated failure to follow reasonable management instructions as outlined in this letter, amount to serious breaches by you in respect of your employment contract with the University. In accordance with the staff disciplinary procedure, this constitutes gross misconduct on your part and as a result, it is our unanimous decision that you be dismissed from your employment, your dismissal being effective from the date of this letter."
"The Claimant/Appellant's case was clearly put by his experienced representative below. It was roundly rejected by the Employment Judge, who concluded that the reason for dismissal related to the Appellant's conduct, not his disclosures, and significantly that he did send the e-mail at 2104 on 2nd September 2010 to Mr Rahman. It was not a forgery, as the Appellant contended. In these circumstances, the finding of fair dismissal must stand. The Appellant's grounds of appeal seek to raise factual issues. No arguable point of law is there advanced."
"I find that the reasons for the dismissal of the Claimant were as set out in the letters of 16th November 2011 notifying the Claimant of the disciplinary hearing and the letter dated 16th February 2012 containing the outcome of the hearing."
That is a finding that the reason was conduct as particularised in those two letters.
"Once gross misconduct is found, dismissal must always fall within the range of reasonable responses and it is not for this Tribunal to substitute any sanctions we might have imposed or whether we would have dismissed the Claimant in these circumstances. We cannot say that the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses."
"Assuming reasonable grounds for the belief that the employee committed the act in issue, the Tribunal will thus still need to consider whether there were reasonable grounds for concluding that she had done so wilfully or in a grossly negligent way."