Jafri v Lincoln College
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LAWS
- LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL
- SIR TIMOTHY LLOYD
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved an appeal against the dismissal of an employment-related claim of unfair dismissal. The appellant was suspended and later dismissed following allegations of abuse. Various factual errors were identified in the ET’s decision by the EAT, but the court ultimately upheld the dismissal, stating that the errors did not affect the overall fairness of the process. The appellant's request for the case to be remitted to the ET for further consideration was denied.
Judgment
LORD JUSTICE LAWS:
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal, with permission granted by Underhill LJ on 10 June 2013, against the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) presided over by Keith J, which on 20 February 2013 dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal (ET) on 3 January 2012. The ET had in its turn dismissed the appellant’s claims of unfair dismissal and detriment suffered as a result of making protective disclosures. On this appeal we are only concerned with the unfair dismissal claim. The principal issue is whether the appellant should be allowed to rely on what the respondent employer says is a new point, not raised in the ET proceedings.
FACTS
The appellant was a teacher and learning specialist. In 1988 he started working at Sudbury Prison, an open prison in Derbyshire. He was successively employed by the Derbyshire Education Authority and then Manchester College, when the latter assumed responsibility for educational services at the prison. That function was at length taken over by Lincoln College, the present respondent, and the appellant’s employment was transferred to Lincoln College on 1 August 2009. His job title was Deputy Learning and Skills Manager.
The Learning and Skills Manager at the prison was Dianna Corbett. On 20 November 2009 she raised a grievance in a letter to the college’s Human Resources Officer. She complained about three members of staff, alleging “physical and verbal abuse” by two of them, one of whom was the appellant. On 26 November 2009 the Governor of the gaol, Mr Kan, decided to exclude all three men from the prison owing to the “serious allegations”. He indicated that the exclusions would continue until the college’s investigations of the complaints had been completed and their outcome discussed with him.
Mr Plummer, the Director of the Offenders Learning and Skills Service, investigated the matter on behalf of the college and wrote a report which was unfavourable to the appellant. There was to be a disciplinary hearing on 29 March 2010, but that was put off at the appellant’s request. In May 2010 the appellant raised two grievances himself. One was that Ms Corbett’s allegations had been false and the college had impeded his attempts to defend himself properly. The second concerned the recruitment by Ms Corbett of two other members of staff and other matters.
On 31 May 2010 Ms Corbett left the college’s employment. She had taken sick leave from 21 January 2