The case of Anwar v Cambridge Housing Authority [2007], concerned an employee who was asked to accept changes to the terms of her employment which would have been very detrimental to her. The employee subsequently brought proceedings against her employer alleging unfair dismissal.

The employer denied the fact that the employee had been unfairly dismissed. Furthermore, the employer contended that the employee had been dismissed because she had refused to accept essential changes to her terms and conditions of employment following an extended period of consultation. The employer felt that this was a substantial reason to dismiss her, and therefore the dismissal was justified.

Upon hearing the case, the employment tribunal found that the employee had been unfairly dismissed. The employer then appealed on the grounds that the tribunal had misdirected itself in law and fact, however, the appeal was dismissed.

It was held that although a different employment tribunal might have come to a different conclusion would not amount to an error of law. In this case, on the evidence before it, the tribunal had been entitled to come to the conclusion that it had. The tribunal had heard and saw the relevant witnesses and reviewed the appropriate evidence before it. It was therefore entitled to reach the conclusion that it had. It was also held that the tribunal had not erred in law.

If you require further information please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php

© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.