The Claimant was dismissed because he was found to have made a threat to a colleague to the effect that he had a gun with her name on it. That allegation was, in the internal process, denied by the claimant, but supported by the evidence of others. The ET dismissed his claim of unfair dismissal, the ET concluding that even though: 1) the manager who heard the Claimant’s appeal against dismissal had also, at an earlier stage, had suspended the Claimant; 2) authorised the matter being progressed by way of disciplinary charges; and 3) had also had a conversation with the person who the claimant was alleged to have threatened, in which he had advised that she should consider making a report to the police, these features did not mean that his being the manager who later heard the Claimant’s appeal rendered the dismissal unfair. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had carefully considered these issues and did not err in law in reaching that conclusion. The ET also did not err in law, by failing to find the dismissal unfair, on the basis that the Respondent had wrongly formed the view that the Claimant owned, or had owned, a gun, when there was no evidence before the Respondent to support such a conclusion. It was not surprising that, in the internal process, the Claimant had been asked questions about that, because an affirmative answer might have been thought to lend some support to the allegation that he had made a threat, but that was not a necessary finding in order to make out the charge.