Claimant/Appellant: Sandhu 

Respondent: Enterprise Rent-a-Car Ltd

Appeal dismissed when it related to an alleged failure of the Tribunal to provide determinations for all issues raised in the case.

The claimant started work as an accounting assistant for the respondent in 1999. Her duties continued to change as the respondent’s operation grew. An issue arose when the claimant was asked to report to a new payroll manager as she wanted to continue reporting to a more senior member of staff. Her performance review was conducted by the senior member of staff and was outlined as ‘requires improvement’. The same categorisation was given in the following two reviews. A comment was made stating that not enough change had been seen since the last review, and it was disappointing. This led to a disciplinary hearing about performance. At the time, the claimant’s father was unwell, and she was having to take on some caring responsibilities. The caring responsibilities were not referred to in the meeting. She was given a verbal warning with a series of steps to address the performance issues.

The issues continued, which led to a further formal disciplinary meeting on the basis of both capability and insubordination. The latter related to the refusal to report to payroll managers since 2016 (as she had reported to the more senior manager). The claimant accepted in the meeting that she was unwilling to have the payroll manager as her line manager and that she did not respect him nor like him. The claimant was dismissed with immediate effect following the meeting and outcome letter. The decision was appealed but rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the employer’s response was within the band of reasonable responses. This was appealed to the EAT and to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the actual dismissal reason was not outside the band of reasonable responses.

The Tribunal decided that some reasonable employers would have made the decision to dismiss in the circumstances. The claimant argued that the respondent did not have an open mind during the process, and they were fixed in the decision to dismiss. The Court of Appeal found that there was an open mind in the meetings, they listened to what was said and addressed the comments that she had made in the outcome letters.

The claimant also made an argument for associative disability discrimination relating to her father’s condition. However, the performance issues were seen to long predate the disability of her father and the caring responsibilities. As a result, that claim was dismissed.

The claimant, in her appeal to the Court of Appeal, stated that the Tribunal failed to make findings of fact about all of the issues identified. This related to sanctions less than dismissal and the failure to follow incremental disciplinary sanctions. The Court of Appeal dismissed this element of appeal citing that the Tribunal’s reasons were amply sufficient as the issue of whether lesser sanctions were considered would be considered linked to the question of whether the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

The Court of Appeal looks at the Tribunal decision and whether the issues have been determined. They have looked at certain elements encompassing others such as the band of reasonable responses test meaning that other matters such as the type of sanction to be given were considered in the round. This is helpful rather than the Tribunal being unduly restricted in how the judgments would have to be written.

You can read the case in full here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/190.pdf