Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment law

Taylor v OCS Group Limited, Court of Appeal, 31 May 2006

by Personnel Today 11 Sep 2006
by Personnel Today 11 Sep 2006

Background

Mr Taylor was dismissed from his employment with OCS Group Limited following an allegation of misconduct.

The tribunal concluded that the dismissal had been unfair because the disciplinary process leading up to his dismissal had been fundamentally and hopelessly flawed.

Although that process had been followed by an internal appeal, the tribunal decided that the appeal could not remedy the defects of the disciplinary process, because it had taken the form of a review of the original decision, rather than a rehearing.

OCS appealed, unsuccessfully, to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). It subsequently lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal.

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that there is no rule of law that only a rehearing by the employer is capable of rectifying earlier procedural shortcomings, and a mere review never is. The question is whether the procedure was fair overall, in spite of any deficiencies at the early stage.

Because the tribunal had fallen into the trap of assuming that only a rehearing could make up for earlier flaws, the appeal was allowed and the case was sent back to be reconsidered by a different tribunal.

Comment

One of the key questions considered by tribunals when deciding whether a dismissal was fair or unfair is whether the employer adopted a fair procedure before deciding to dismiss. It is well-established that an employer may be able to make up for procedural defects during the dismissal stage by holding a fair appeal (provided the statutory dismissal procedure has been followed).

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This Court of Appeal decision confirms that an appeal need not always take the form of a complete rehearing if it is to rectify a defective dismissal process. What matters is whether the disciplinary process as a whole was fair, not whether the internal appeal was technically a rehearing or a review.

Nevertheless, the more thorough the internal appeal process, the more likely it is to remedy any earlier defects.




Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Quigley v University of St Andrews, Employment Appeal Tribunal, 9 August 2006
next post
Sexual orientation

You may also like

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Lawyers warn over impact of Employment Rights Bill...

13 Jun 2025

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Institute of Directors demand reforms to Employment Rights...

6 Jun 2025

Employment Rights Bill: peers propose change to work...

4 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+