Home Office Wins Unfair Dismissal Appeal: Easton v Secretary of State
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Home Office's decision to dismiss an employee for dishonesty regarding his application. The tribunal found the dismissal fair.
• public
Home Office Prevails in Unfair Dismissal Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal by Mr. P Easton against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force) in a case concerning unfair dismissal. The judgment, handed down on 7 February 2025, upheld the original employment tribunal's decision that the Home Office acted reasonably in dismissing Mr. Easton for providing a misleading account of his employment history on his application form.
Background: Dismissal and Application Discrepancies
Mr. Easton had previously been dismissed from the Home Office for gross misconduct in 2016. In 2019, he applied for a new role with the Border Force. During the application process, he did not disclose his previous dismissal or a subsequent three-month period of unemployment. After being hired, discrepancies were discovered, leading to a second dismissal based on dishonesty during the application. Mr. Easton then brought an action for unfair dismissal, victimization, discrimination and detriment, all of which were rejected by the Employment Tribunal.
The Tribunal's Reasoning
The EAT considered whether the employment tribunal had adequately assessed Mr. Easton's explanations for his actions, in light of his claim that the application form was ambiguous. Sarah Crowther KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court, found that the original tribunal *had* properly considered the facts and correctly applied the principles established in BHS v Burchell [1980] ICR 303. The tribunal was satisfied that the Home Office had reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Easton intentionally obscured his previous dismissal and period of unemployment.
Key Findings: Honesty and Application Accuracy
The EAT emphasised the importance of honesty and accuracy in job applications. The tribunal found that the claimant understood that the Home Office required any dismissals and periods of unemployment in the previous 3 years and that this would be relevant and material information that the Home Office would require when applying for a role within it.
The judgment highlights the right of employers to rely on the information provided by applicants. Failure to disclose relevant details, even if the application form is not entirely explicit, can be grounds for dismissal if the employer reasonably believes the omission was deliberate and dishonest.
The Claimant submitted that the application form lacked guidance and featured a simple, empty box for employment history, however this claim was not accepted by the courts, as a general declaration had been signed stating any applications that have been rejected due to false information or withheld details may be subject to disciplinary action.
Implications for Employers and Employees
This case serves as a reminder to employers to ensure their application forms are clear and comprehensive. However, it also underscores the responsibility of job applicants to provide truthful and complete information. While there is no general duty of disclosure, applicants must answer questions accurately and not wilfully withhold material facts.
This case underlines that even where the question asked is open to interpretation, if the answers given are factually incorrect or have omitted detail, then there is a strong likelihood of an unfair dismissal claim being struck out.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr P Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force) [2025] EAT 15
