Investigation imperfections do not always render a dismissal unfair.
In the case of Lamb v Teva UK Ltd [2026] EAT 8, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether an Employment Tribunal (ET) had been right to dismiss a claim for unfair dismissal despite imperfections in the investigatory and disciplinary procedures.
Background
Mr Lamb was an engineering supervisor at a pharmaceutical manufacturing site and responsible for equipment that used an electrical charger. After a forklift charger with a damaged cable had not been properly locked off, an employee suffered a potentially fatal electric shock. Following an investigation, the employer concluded that the Claimant had been aware of the damaged charger, had not isolated it in accordance with Company Health and Safety Rules and had signed a permit confirming the area was safe when it was not. Mr Lamb was dismissed for gross misconduct and he brought a claim for unfair dismissal.
Findings of the ET and EAT
The ET rejected his Claim. In doing so the ET considered the various procedural issues in the case:-
The investigator also provided a witness statement;
The notetaker also provided a witness statement;
Mr Lamb had less than 24 hours to consider some of the evidence; and
A manager in the business had told others that Mr Lamb would not return.
The ET stressed in its a decision that a dismissal process does not need to be perfect, but it must be reasonable and conducted within a band of reasonable responses.
The EAT concluded that the ET’s decision was robust and that the grounds for appeal were not met.
Takeaways for Employers
Maintain a fair and transparent disciplinary process (ie separate roles are preferable but not always mandatory, share evidence in a timely manner, avoid comments that indicate that the outcome is predetermined and document all steps to show fairness and consistency); and
Understand the "range of reasonable responses" test and what makes a dismissal fair (fair dismissal depends on both the reason and the process)