In The British Council v Mr P Sellers: [2025] EAT 1, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the Respondent, The British Council, had unfairly dismissed the Claimant, Mr Sellers, in breach of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, the EAT overturned the Employment Tribunal’s (ET) decision to order the Claimant’s re-engagement, ruling that the tribunal had erred in its approach.
The Claimant, who had been employed as a Country Director for Italy, was dismissed for gross misconduct following an allegation of sexual assault made by an employee of the British Embassy. The British Council conducted an internal investigation, and an independent barrister was later instructed to re-examine the matter. The Claimant denied the allegations and brought a claim for unfair dismissal before the ET.
The ET found that the Respondent’s investigation had been flawed and concluded that the dismissal was unfair. As a remedy, the tribunal ordered that the Claimant be re-engaged in an equivalent role, rejecting the British Council’s arguments that this would be impracticable due to a breakdown in trust and confidence. The British Council appealed, arguing that the ET had misapplied the law and had wrongly substituted its own judgment for that of the employer.
The EAT allowed the appeal, finding that the ET had erred in its approach to assessing the British Council’s belief in the Claimant’s misconduct. It ruled that the ET should have considered whether the Respondent’s belief was genuinely and rationally held, rather than imposing its own assessment of the evidence. The EAT also found that the ET had misapplied the legal tests for practicability and contributory fault, stating that the tribunal was not required to determine contributory fault if it was not raised as an issue by the parties.
The judgment examined key legal principles under the Employment Rights Act 1996, particularly sections 115 and 116, regarding re-engagement and the practical implications of reinstating a dismissed employee. The EAT emphasised that re-engagement orders must be based on a real-world assessment of practicability and that a fundamental loss of trust and confidence could make such an order inappropriate.
