Lake v British Transport Police: [2007] EWCA Civ 424

CA: Pill, Wall and Maurice Kay LJJ: 4 May 2007

In 1997 the claimant, a police constable with the respondent police force, attended the scene of a fatality with two fellow officers. Four years later he became aware that while they were at the scene those officers committed an unlawful act but he did not report the matter until six months later. He appeared before a police disciplinary board, which found him guilty of charges arising from the failure to take action and directed that he be dismissed from the force. On a review of the board's decision to dismiss the claimant the chief constable upheld the decision. On the claimant's complaint that his dismissal was unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employment tribunal at a pre-hearing review held that the proceedings before the board and the board's decision were immune from suit, so that the tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the claim was restricted to the actions of the chief constable in reviewing and confirming the decision to dismiss. The Employment Appeal Tribunal affirmed the decision of the employment tribunal on an appeal by the claimant.

The claimant appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:
The claimant was not seeking to challenge the customary immunity from suit enjoyed by those engaged in proceedings in a judicial tribunal. What he was seeking to do was to put to the employment tribunal the case which he had unsuccessfully put to the disciplinary board. The employment tribunal was not bound by the decision of the board and had jurisdiction to hear and consider the evidence and to make its own decision in the case. Accordingly, the employment tribunal’s ruling that the proceedings before the board and the board's decision could not form the basis of the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim would be struck out.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearances: John Davies QC (Hunt Kidd, Newcastle upon Tyne) for the claimant; Richard Lissack QC and Andrew Short (Weightmans) for the employers.