Employment Appeal Tribunal Clarifies Procedural Fairness and Remits Unfair Dismissal Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has remitted a case to the original judge, highlighting gaps in assessing procedural fairness and potential contributory fault.
• public
The Background
The case of Fargro Ltd v Hide involved an appeal and cross-appeal following an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The claimant, a former integrated pest management specialist, was dismissed by the respondent following a series of allegations, including bullying, insubordination, and inappropriate use of company equipment. The disciplinary process was handled by external consultants, a decision that became central to the legal dispute.
Tribunal Findings
The Employment Judge (EJ) initially found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to the respondent using the same decision-maker for both the initial dismissal and the subsequent appeal. Additionally, the EJ found that some allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence. However, the EJ rejected other procedural complaints, including the respondent's reliance on external consultants, and made a 66.66% Polkey reduction to the claimant's compensation. Notably, the EJ made no finding of contributory fault, stating there was insufficient direct evidence to do so.
EAT Decision
On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the respondent's challenge regarding contributory fault. The EAT confirmed that tribunals are not required to proactively search for evidence of contributory fault when a party fails to properly articulate or support such a case. The EAT upheld the EJ's decision that there was no sufficient basis to make findings of fault beyond the limited admissions regarding a screensaver incident.
Regarding the claimant's cross-appeal, the EAT allowed it in part. Her Honour Judge Joffe ruled that the EJ failed to address several material points, including whether the claimant had a proper opportunity to explain himself to the decision-maker and the failure to consider arguments regarding mitigation. Consequently, the EAT set aside the Polkey reduction, noting that it must be reconsidered alongside any further findings of unfairness.
The case has been remitted for further findings, with the EAT emphasising that tribunals must engage with all material arguments to satisfy the requirement for adequate reasons.
Read the entire judgment here: Fargro Ltd v Hide [2026] EAT 162
