ALM (Medical Services) Ltd v Bladon

Factual and Procedural Background

Company A operates nursing homes. The Appellee worked for a short period between June and September 1999 as a charge nurse at one of these nursing homes. He was dismissed on 16th September 1999 and subsequently presented a complaint of unfair dismissal (protected disclosure) to the Employment Tribunal on 20th September 1999. The Appellee claimed that his dismissal was due to making a protected disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

The Employment Tribunal held a hearing and decided that the Appellee had been subjected to a detriment in the form of a written warning and was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure. The matter was adjourned to determine remedy. Compensation was awarded for both the detriment and unfair dismissal, with no appeal against the compensatory award but an appeal against the award for injured feelings.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal reviewed the case, concluding there was no arguable point of law regarding the detriment and unfair dismissal findings but directed a full hearing on the appeal concerning the injured feelings award. Company A applied for a review of the Appeal Tribunal's decision, delaying the appeal process. The review application was refused on grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Company A then sought permission to appeal, requesting an extension of time and permission to bring additional evidence. The appeal concerns the refusal of the Appeal Tribunal to allow the appeal on questions of detriment and unfair dismissal to proceed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing to allow the appeal on questions of detriment and unfair dismissal to proceed.
2. Whether the Employment Tribunal misdirected itself on the law relating to unfair dismissal and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
3. Whether the Employment Tribunal conducted a fair hearing, including allowing the company to call crucial witnesses and the conduct of the tribunal chairman.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Employment Tribunal did not provide a full or fair hearing.
• The Tribunal refused to allow Company A to call crucial witnesses.
• The chairman of the Tribunal was allegedly rude and aggressive towards the company's representative and did not allow proper questioning to test the Appellee's case.
• The chairman misdirected himself on the law regarding unfair dismissal and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the grounds raised by Company A and found them sufficient to grant permission to appeal, primarily focusing on the interpretation and application of the unfair dismissal provisions and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The court expressed that there was no real prospect of success regarding complaints about the chairman's conduct during the Employment Tribunal hearing. The court noted the novelty of the jurisdiction conferred on employment tribunals under these provisions and recognized the appropriateness of this case for addressing such legal questions. The court also cautioned the appellant about the risks of pursuing the appeal, including potential cost consequences if unsuccessful.

Holding and Implications

Permission to appeal granted.

The court granted permission to appeal on the basis that the appeal raises important questions about the interpretation and application of the unfair dismissal and Public Interest Disclosure Act provisions. The decision allows the appeal to proceed to address these substantive legal issues. The court clarified that permission does not guarantee success and highlighted the cost risks to the appellant if the appeal fails. No new precedent was established by this decision; the direct effect is to permit the appellant to pursue the appeal further.