STERLING LAW 01.07.2021

A VICTORY FOR OUR CLIENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

Our client was employed as a bus driver and had 18 years of continuous employment. He had a clean record with no warnings or incidents. 

While driving in the rain, he had been involved in one unexplained low-speed accident which resulted in a collision with three parked cars and a fence. This caused about £40,000 of damage. He believed that the brakes on his vehicle had failed, although the employer had carried out tests and found nothing to be wrong.

There was video evidence of the bus journey, including in the driver’s cab. This showed that he was obviously awake and not distracted at the time that the accident occurred. 

The cause of the accident could only be complete unexplained negligence by our client, the driver, but he did not accept that. He disputed it from the very first time that the employer interviewed him. The company dismissed him within a couple of weeks, and his internal appeal was also unsuccessful.  

Attempts to negotiate a compromise were unsuccessful and this led to a hearing recently at Watford Employment Tribunal. One of the large ‘magic circle’ City law firms and their specialist employment barrister opposed us all along. 

Our employment solicitor, Kuldeep Clair, handled the case for us, and also advocated at the tribunal.

The decision of the tribunal came a month after a three-day hearing. We pointed out how the company had not considered theoretical alternative explanations for the accident, and how disclosure of the brake test reports had come extraordinarily late. The company’s culture of hostility to lawyers representing employees was also criticised; their HR appeals manager had been uncooperative and failed to look at the original decision afresh. 

The negative side was the following:

The tribunal felt that the employer can conclude the brakes were not faulty. This is in the light of all of the evidence, and lack of a positive alternative explanation from the client.

Decisions to dismiss are rarely black and white. They need to fall in a ‘band of reasonable responses’. A tribunal will always be looking at the overall reasonableness of the employer’s decision taking account of the full circumstances.   

However, we were successful in pointing out the procedural irregularities throughout. The tribunal decided that if the employer had adopted a proper procedure, there was a 30% possibility that the employer’s decision might have been in favour of our client. So, he received only a proportion of his full damages. However, that was enough to cover the trial costs. He fought the case as a matter of principle, and so he was pleased with the result. He had few ongoing losses as he found an alternative job three months after being dismissed in any event.

 

Recent news
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19): WORKER AND STUDENT SPONSORS 13.01.2021
The Home office will not take enforcement action against sponsors who continue to sponsor students or employees despite absences due to coronavirus. You do not need to report student or employee...
STATUTORY DEMAND 17.05.2021
If you have an undisputed amount due to you or to your business (e.g. an unpaid invoice) then you can file a form called statutory demand requesting a debtor to settle the debt. If you have an u...
STERLING LAW 29.09.2020
Recently there was a decision in the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-311/18 – Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems. The CJEU has confirmed...
LEGAL COSTS – CAN YOU RECOVER THEM FROM YOUR OPPONENT? 01.07.2021
Kuldeep S. Clair, our senior Consultant Solicitor in Dispute Resolution and Employment Law offers his views on this important topic:  This question is understandably a common initial concern for...
ASYLUM APPEAL OF A NEPALESE NATIONAL AND HER SPOUSE 01.07.2021
Our immigration team has achieved a successful decision in the asylum appeal of a Nepalese national and her spouse. According to the Immigration & Asylum Upper Tribunal, they should both be all...
Read more