Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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

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

P&O Ferries boss who steered 800 sackings steps...

29 Aug 2025

Council clerk sacked after trying to ensure his...

29 Aug 2025

Day one rights in the Employment Rights Bill...

28 Aug 2025

EHRC acts on policies flouting law on single-sex...

28 Aug 2025

Acas to explore use of AI as half...

27 Aug 2025

Royal Mail eCourier drivers bring legal claim over...

26 Aug 2025

Lidl enters agreement with EHRC to prevent sexual...

22 Aug 2025

X settles severance claims of former Twitter employees

22 Aug 2025

Midwife files belief claim after Trust reported social...

20 Aug 2025

Personnel Today Awards 2025 shortlist: Employment Law Firm...

20 Aug 2025

  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...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
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
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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