The Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing where, initially, this misconduct alleged was that he had failed to work at another of the Respondent's outlets when instructed and that he had left an outlet unmanned and unlocked. The Claimant, as the ET found, then obtained CCTV footage from the Respondent without authorisation. The CCTV footage was to show that he had not left the outlet unmanned as alleged. However, that led to a further allegation of gross misconduct, that the Claimant should not have obtained the CCTV footage. The Claimant said that he did not obtain the CCTV footage but that a former colleague had done so. The Respondent then tested that explanation by contacting the former employee. The former employee denied that he had obtained the footage. The Respondent, as did the ET in its judgment, came to the conclusion that the explanation surrounding the CCTV footage was a dishonest account prepared by the Claimant. The Claimant was then dismissed on the basis of the initial allegations but also on the basis that he had been dishonest in responding to the questions by indicating that he had not obtained the CCTV footage. The Claimant was not told of the investigation and the dishonesty allegation prior to the dismissal taking place and this formed the basis of his appeal: the Claimant was not notified of an allegation of dishonesty in respect of the CCTV footage; it was contended that this was a breach of natural justice; it should have been put to the claimant; and the ET should have taken that point for itself because the Claimant was a litigant in person.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Potential procedural failings in conduct dismissals are many and varied. As such they are not, necessarily, obvious issues which the ET must consider if not raised by the parties. If not an obvious procedural failing then there is no requirement for the ET to deal with such an issue, even in the case of a litigant in person. The ET was entitled to consider the entirety of the dismissal process, including the appeal when asking if the claimant had been aware of the allegations he had to meet as an aspect of natural justice.