Not necessarily unfair dismissal when there are some mishaps

In Lamb v Teva UK Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal 'EAT' has refused to overturn an Employment Tribunal's finding that a dismissal for misconduct was fair despite four complaints from the employee that:

1. The investigating manager was a witness.
2. The note-taker at the disciplinary was a witness.
3. CCTV footage was only provided 24 hours before the disciplinary meeting.
4. A manager not involved in the hearing had said something like 'I don't think he's going to be back at the business' before the disciplinary meeting.

The case arose after the employee had wrongly signed off as safe an electrical fault, that led to someone getting an electric shock injury. The employee challenged the Tribunal's finding that the dismissal was fair despite all the issues he raised, and he failed to overturn the decision on appeal. The appeal was rejected in robust terms, the EAT warned against setting standards of procedure as if an employer was investigating a crime or even dealing with a civil legal claim, in a key quote the EAT said:

'What is required is substantive industrial fairness, that takes account of the seriousness of the allegations and ensures that the allegations are investigated fairly, looking both for material that may support or undermine the allegation.'

Another key point is that the managers taking the decision must act in good faith, and the Employment Tribunal was clear as to why the employee was dismissed and it was due to his misconduct. Whilst the involvement of witnesses in an investigation is not ideal, here it was relatively minor and wasn't serious enough to affect the fairness of the process, and the same goes for the note-taker; the late CCTV footage wasn't objected to at the time, and the comment about the employee not coming back had been made, but not by the manager who took the decision to dismiss, who the Employment Tribunal found had clearly made his own decision. Whilst the comment was 'unwise', it did not mean that the decision was unfair.

This case is a useful pointer for employers and employees as to the limited scope for challenging the fairness of a dismissal by looking at particular points without considering the overall process. However, employers mindful of the forthcoming lifting of the limits on unfair dismissal compensation under the Employment Rights Act 2025 would be well-advised to avoid procedural mishaps in case a dismissal is found to be unfair.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6964d3e199fbdc498faeccc7/Mr_Craig_Lamb_v_Teva_Uk_Ltd__2026__EAT_8.pdf

Contact us

Please do not hesitate to contact our Employment Law Team on 
01522 814638, or make an enquiry here.