The appellant employees were both social workers responsible for the care of "Baby P", who died as a result of chronic lack of care and abuse by his mother and two men while on the child protection register and subject to a local authority child protection plan. After the child’s death both employees were disciplined under the simplified disciplinary procedure and given written warnings. Following a public and press outcry, a fresh review of Baby P's case was undertaken by a newly appointed Director of Children's Services. Further disciplinary proceedings were then held, which involved reopening determinations made at the first disciplinary process, and which resulted in both employees being summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.

Internal appeals were dismissed. The employees began proceedings for Unfair Dismissal on the basis that it had been unfair to subject them to a second disciplinary process. These claims were rejected by the employment tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld this decision and found that the simplified procedure did not constitute a form of adjudication so as to engage the res judicata doctrine, and that the doctrine of abuse of process did not apply. The Court helpfully explains the doctrine of res judicata: "The doctrine of res judicata provides that where a decision is pronounced by a judicial or other tribunal with jurisdiction over a particular matter, that same matter cannot be re-opened by parties bound by the decision, save on appeal. A party can set up an estoppel against his opponent to prevent him from seeking to re-open what has already been determined. This is a rigorous rule with few exceptions (fraud is one)."

Elias LJ, giving the lead judgement, found that it is wrong to describe the exercise of disciplinary power by the employer as a form of adjudication. The purpose of the procedure is not “a determination of any issue which establishes the existence of a legal right”, nor is it properly regarded as “determining a dispute”. Disciplinary power was conferred on an employer by the hierarchical nature of the relationship. Its purpose was to enable the employer to establish whether the employee had acted inappropriately and, if so, how that should affect relations between them. Even if the procedure invoked had been contractually agreed, as in the instant case, it was still far removed from the process of litigation or adjudication to which the doctrine of res judicata attached. It was also held that while res judicata might apply in an employment context, it will generally not apply where the procedure was staffed by the employer's own personnel. 9 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/178.html