The Claimant had worked for the Home Office but was dismissed in 2016 for gross misconduct and had been unemployed for 3 months after that time. He then worked for another organisation and applied for a different role at the Home Office in 2019. When required to complete the blank section of the application form headed Employment History, he failed to disclose that he had previously been dismissed for gross misconduct by the Home Office in 2016 and had been unemployed for about 3 months in the summer of 2016 as a consequence. When the Respondent found out he was dismissed on the basis that he had been dishonest in his application for the role. His appeal was unsuccessful and the ET also found that his dismissal was fair. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET adequately addressed its mind to the question of whether the Respondent had been entitled to conclude that a reasonable applicant faced with a blank box headed ‘employment history’ on an application form would have understood that the information needed to be presented in such a manner as to reveal to the Respondent any gaps in employment, education or training. The ET had applied the BHS v Burchell [1980] ICR 303 principles to all the facts and issues correctly and was entitled to find on the facts that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant’s decision to present his employment history in a way which obscured the fact and nature of his previous dismissal for gross misconduct and subsequent 3 month period of unemployment had been taken dishonestly. Accordingly, the ET had been entitled to find that the Respondent’s decision to treat the Claimant’s conduct as grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.