The following decisions have been placed on the EAT website in the last 24 hours.
Grattan plc v Hussain (HHJ Burke, 1st July 2003)
An important decision on conduct dismissals. The EAT emphasises the test is not whether further investigation might reasonably have been carried out by the employer, but whether the investigation which had been carried out could be regarded by a reasonable employer as adequate. It emphasises the decision in Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt, which applies the 'range of reasonable responses' test to the investigation process as well as to the ultimate decision.
Stansbury v Datapulse plc (Wall J., 8th May 2003)
An unusually interesting case to read, in which it seems (although the EAT carefully avoided making findings of fact) that a wing member had been drunk during part of the employment tribunal hearing, had fallen asleep and had made disparaging remarks about the chairman to the parties when passing them in the corridor.
The EAT held, largely because the decision was (a) unanimous, (b) reserved, and (c) not substantively challenged that even if the Appellant's allegations (which were supported by some significant evidence) were upheld, it would not mean that he had not received a fair trial under article 6 of the ECHR. His appeal was accordingly dismissed.