Mr Stuart was employed by London City Airport as a ramp operator. During a break he was suspected of taking some items from the duty free. The police were called and he was apprehended in the shop next door whilst talking to a colleague with the items which he had not paid for. After a hearing and appeal Mr Stuart was dismissed. He claimed Unfair Dismissal, denying the misconduct and alleging that the Airport had failed to carry out a proper investigation. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim.

The EAT found this decision to be perverse stating that the Airport in its investigation had focused too much on the question of whether Mr Stuart had known he was leaving the duty free shop and had not interviewed people, such as the colleague who he was talking to, who could have corroborated his story.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the EAT. Mr Stuart’s main point was that he had never believed he had left the duty-free and the Airport had investigated this defence. The Airport had found it impossible to accept that he could have been under the misapprehension that he claimed and that had an important consequence, Mr Stuart had advanced an untruthful defence. The Airport had not investigated his other behaviour, such as talking to the colleague as he had not based his defence 14 upon this. At no time during the disciplinary proceedings did Mr Stuart suggest that the Airport should carry out the investigations whose omission was now said by him to render the dismissal unfair. The question for the ET to decide was whether the Airport had reasonable grounds for its belief that Mr Stuart had intended not to pay for the items and had carried out a sufficient investigation. It was held that the ET had directed itself correctly. http://bit.ly/13gUMPN