Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
The reason for a dismissal is the set of facts known to the employer, or beliefs held by it, which cause it to dismiss the employee.
Facts
Mr Abernethy, a civil engineer, was employed by a firm of consulting engineers. He refused to move from the head office to a site in Scotland, which he was required to do under his contract. He was dismissed, and the employer gave as its reason redundancy, but the tribunal found that the real reason was his inflexibility and lack of capability. He argued that the employer could not rely on a reason other than the one it had given.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal was fair. Cairns LJ said that a reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If the employer gives a reason which is wrongly labelled, the tribunal is not bound by the label, and can find that the real reason was a different one, provided that the employee is not prejudiced by the change. Here, the real reason was capability, which was a fair reason.
Related cases on unfair dismissal
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380, [2008] ICR 799
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] AC 344
- Post Office v Foley; HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] ICR 1283
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55, [2020] ICR 731
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588, [2003] ICR 111
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 702, [2006] ICR 1602
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
