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 lawDismissal

Case of the week – Communicating the right of appeal

by michael powner 11 Sep 2007
by michael powner 11 Sep 2007

Aptuit (Edinburgh) Limited v Kennedy EAT/0057/06

FACTS Aptuit provides clinical supplies across Europe. Mrs Kennedy worked at one of its three sites in Edinburgh, where kits of medicine were prepared for distribution to those participating in clinical trials. As part of a cost saving exercise, a number of redundancies were proposed. As less than 20 people were being made redundant at the time, the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures (SDDPs) applied.

Kennedy was notified that her job was at risk, and she subsequently attended a meeting with representatives from Aptuit’s HR department. Although she was dismissed by reason of redundancy, the redundancy letter made no mention of her right of appeal. She claimed unfair dismissal.

Decision A tribunal found that Kennedy’s dismissal was automatically unfair on the basis that Aptuit had failed to offer Kennedy an appeal against the decision to dismiss her. Because Aptuit was a large organisation, there appeared to be no consultation and it had treated her in a “shoddy manner”, the tribunal awarded a compensation uplift of 40%.

On appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), Aptuit argued that in her ET1 claim form, Kennedy had not complained about a failure to offer an appeal. On its ET3 form, Aptuit had stated that an appeal had taken place, and there was no application to amend the ET1 to dispute this. It was not until the submission stage of the hearing that it became apparent that the tribunal considered that the SDDPs had not been complied with.

Aptuit argued that the tribunal chairman should have notified them that he did not believe they had complied with the SDDPs as soon as he identified the issue. Aptuit would then have been able to submit relevant evidence.

The EAT found that where a tribunal identifies an issue which favours an unrepresented party, they must notify the represented party as soon as possible in the interests of fairness.

In relation to other aspects of the appeal, the EAT found that there was no obligation to communicate the right of appeal in writing. Additionally, the tribunal had erred in finding that the employer must “offer” the employee an appeal. The SDDPs merely require it to communicate the right of appeal. On the issue of uplift, the EAT found that the tribunal had taken irrelevant matters into account, including the fact that Aptuit is a large organisation, and that there appeared to be no consultation whatsoever. The case was remitted to a fresh tribunal for rehearing.

Key implications While offering the right of appeal in writing would make matters clearer, it is not a requirement of the legislation for the employer. In relation to assessing the uplift for failure to follow the SDDPs, the EAT considered the tribunal had taken into account factors that didn’t relate to the employer’s failure to follow the SDDP, and were therefore irrelevant.

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.

However, it is questionable whether the EAT’s approach is correct, as under the regulations, there is no specific limit on the circumstances that can be taken into account by tribunals considering an uplift.

Michael Powner,
Partner,
Charles Russell




michael powner

previous post
Weekly dilemma Obesity in the workplace
next post
Personal data stolen from Pfizer exposes 34,000 UK employees to risk of identity theft

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

‘Polygamous working’ is a minefield for HR

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...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+