HM Prison Service & Ors v Ibimidun

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns long-running litigation between the Plaintiff, a black male of Nigerian origin employed by Company A as a prison officer at a high-security facility, and the Defendant, Company A, along with five individual managers employed by Company A. The Plaintiff commenced employment in March 1999 and was dismissed in November 2005. Over several years, the Plaintiff brought multiple claims against the Defendant and individual managers, including allegations of racial discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract.

Earlier claims included an allegation of assault and racial victimisation, some of which were settled or dismissed. The litigation involved multiple Employment Tribunals, including a significant Liability Judgment by a Tribunal chaired by Judge MacInnes in May 2007 following a lengthy hearing. The Defendant and two individual managers appealed parts of this Liability Judgment, while the Plaintiff sought to cross-appeal, which was dismissed at an initial stage for lacking reasonable prospects of success.

The Plaintiff also appealed the Remedy Judgment from September 2007, and the Defendant cross-appealed a review decision affirming findings of victimisation. The present appeal focuses on the Defendant’s challenge to three adverse findings made by the MacInnes Tribunal: unlawful victimisation, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract related to failure to investigate certain complaints by the Plaintiff.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant and individual managers unlawfully victimised the Plaintiff contrary to Sections 2 and 4(2)(c) of the Race Relations Act 1976 by dismissing him due to protected acts.
2. Whether the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed by the Defendant under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, considering the reason for dismissal and its reasonableness.
3. Whether the Defendant breached the implied term of trust and confidence by failing to investigate the Plaintiff’s complaint concerning alleged falsification of training records.
4. Whether the findings of liability by the MacInnes Tribunal should be upheld or set aside on appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The reason for the Plaintiff’s dismissal was that he brought certain claims, specifically the Rowett/Howard claim, not to seek justice but to harass the Defendant and its employees.
• Bringing claims for the purpose of harassment is not a protected act under Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and thus cannot ground a claim of victimisation.
• The Tribunal erred in conflating the Plaintiff’s complaint about falsified training records with the reason for dismissal, which was focused solely on harassment through litigation.
• The Tribunal’s finding of unfair dismissal was flawed because it relied on the erroneous victimisation finding and failed to properly apply the Burchell test regarding the employer’s reasonable belief and investigation.
• The breach of contract claim depended on the flawed reasoning underpinning the unfair dismissal and victimisation findings and should therefore fail.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• While accepting that claims brought to harass are not protected, the Plaintiff contended that the Tribunal must have found some other reason for dismissal supporting victimisation.
• The Plaintiff argued that the Tribunal’s findings of victimisation and unfair dismissal should stand given the evidence presented.
• The Plaintiff maintained that the failure to investigate the complaint about falsified training records was relevant to the reason for dismissal and supported the breach of contract claim.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed review of the MacInnes Tribunal’s findings and the underlying factual matrix. It identified that the Tribunal found the Plaintiff had engaged in protected acts by bringing complaints and claims of racial discrimination. However, the Tribunal also found that the Plaintiff’s motivation for bringing the Rowett/Howard claim was to harass the Defendant and its employees rather than to seek legitimate redress.

On the victimisation claim, the Court emphasized that protection under Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976 does not extend to claims brought maliciously or not in good faith. The Tribunal’s own findings established that the Plaintiff’s claim was brought to harass, which disqualified it from protection. Therefore, the reason for dismissal—harassment through litigation—was not a protected act, undermining the victimisation claim.

Regarding the unfair dismissal claim, the Court applied the two-stage test under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that the Defendant had a potentially fair reason for dismissal (conduct amounting to harassment) and had reasonable grounds and belief supported by an independent tribunal’s findings. The Tribunal’s conclusion that dismissal was unfair because the conduct was protected was flawed, as the conduct was not protected. Additionally, the Tribunal’s criticism of the Defendant’s failure to investigate a later complaint about falsified records was irrelevant to the reason for dismissal and did not undermine the fairness of the dismissal.

On the breach of contract claim, the Court found that it depended on the flawed reasoning underpinning the victimisation and unfair dismissal findings. Since those findings failed, the breach of contract claim also failed.

The Court noted procedural history including multiple prior claims, appeals, and costs orders against the Plaintiff, which supported the Tribunal’s findings about the Plaintiff’s conduct and motivation.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to allow the Defendant’s appeal, setting aside the MacInnes Tribunal’s findings of unlawful victimisation, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract.

Holding: The Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed, the liability appeal succeeds in favor of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s remedy appeal and the Defendant’s cross-appeal on remedy review are dismissed as moot.

Implications: This decision directly affects the parties by overturning earlier favorable findings for the Plaintiff and dismissing his claims. It clarifies that claims brought with the primary purpose of harassment are not protected under victimisation provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 and cannot ground claims of unfair dismissal or breach of contract on that basis. No new precedent beyond the application of established principles was set.