The claimant, a long-serving HGV driver, was dismissed by DHL Services Ltd in June 2022 on capability grounds after more than two years’ absence due to medical conditions, including vertigo and vestibular migraines. He lodged an internal appeal, but due to a series of procedural failings, it was never heard.
The initially appointed appeal manager declined to hear the case, and their replacement failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, leaving the claimant and his union representative waiting on site. Responsibility was then placed on the claimant to nominate an alternative manager and propose new dates, without this being confirmed in writing. When the claimant began Acas early conciliation—believing this prevented continuation of the internal process—the employer did not clarify the position or seek to progress the appeal. As a result, no appeal ever took place.
The Employment Tribunal acknowledged these shortcomings but concluded that the dismissal was fair overall, on the basis that an appeal had been offered. The claimant appealed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned this decision. It found that the Tribunal had failed to properly apply established case law, including West Midlands Co-Operative Society v Tipton, which confirms that a flawed appeal process can render a dismissal unfair. The EAT emphasised that an appeal is a fundamental part of a fair disciplinary process—not a mere formality.
Given the seriousness of the procedural failings, and with no evidence that an appeal would have been futile, the EAT held that the dismissal was unfair. It substituted its own finding accordingly.
Although the original claim also included disability discrimination and unpaid wages, the appeal focused solely on the fairness of the dismissal.
Employers must ensure that appeal processes are properly conducted. Even where the initial decision to dismiss may be reasonable, significant flaws at the appeal stage can undermine the fairness of the entire process.