The Claimant was dismissed after the Respondent showed her CCTV footage of her taking money from the till. The ET found that the dismissal was fair; the Respondent had conducted an investigation meeting, disciplinary hearing and appeal hearing and had given the Claimant several opportunities to explain why she had taken the money. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The decision of the EJ was seriously deficient in failing to address the argument of the Claimant that the takings of the till on the relevant day were up and not down, as that appears to have been a material factor in the decision of the Respondents to dismiss the Claimant. It was also material to the decision as to whether the Respondents were reasonable to reach the conclusion that they did that the Claimant had been guilty of theft, notwithstanding the evidence of the printout. In those circumstances, the EJ should have considered and decided the import of the evidence relied upon respectively by the Claimant and Respondents as to whether the Respondents could reasonably conclude on the material, not just relied upon by them but available to them at the time, that the Claimant was guilty of theft.