The appellant, an imam from the respondent mosque, was unfairly dismissed and claimed to have suffered the effects of stigma. He argued that the controversial and public nature of proceedings taken as a result of his Unfair Dismissal made it very difficult for him to obtain further employment as an imam in another masque. The evidence to support this was his dismissal, over a year later, from another mosque.

The appellant claimed that a trustee of the respondent advised the new employer to dismiss him before he brought similar proceedings against it. The Tribunal failed to find that the evidence to establish stigma was justified.

On appeal, the EAT stated that in every case the question was whether, in relation to finding re-employment, stigma from the former employee's previous employment had (a) a real or substantial effect, and

(b) if it did, how great an effect.

To answer this question there must be evidence consisting of difficulty in obtaining or keeping employment due to “stigma”, particularly where the stigma consists of taking successful proceedings against a former employer.

A second ground of complaint regarding the validity of holiday leave was also rejected. The evidence before the Employment Tribunal had been too vague, unspecific, contradictory and uncertain, and thus, the Tribunal was justified in not permitting the claim.