Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
Where an employee alleges that the reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure, the employer must prove its reason, but if it fails the tribunal is not bound to accept the employee's reason.
Facts
Dr Kuzel was dismissed by Roche. She had made protected disclosures to her employer, and claimed that she was dismissed because of them, which would be automatically unfair. Roche said that she was dismissed because of a breakdown in her relationship with her managers. The tribunal rejected both of the reasons put forward, and found that the reason for dismissal was something else, the employer's frustration with her, which was not a protected disclosure.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the tribunal had been entitled to reach that conclusion. Mummery LJ said that the employer must show the reason for the dismissal, and that if it fails to do so, the dismissal is unfair. The employee who alleges an automatically unfair reason has to produce some evidence supporting that reason, but does not have to prove it. Where the employer's reason is rejected, it does not automatically follow that the employee's reason must be accepted, because the tribunal can find that the real reason was a different one. The question is one of fact for the tribunal.
Related cases on unfair dismissal
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17
- 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.
