Lamb v Teva UK Ltd: investigator dual roles and procedural fairness in misconduct dismissals

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has provided important guidance on procedural fairness requirements in misconduct dismissals, particularly where investigators have dual roles as witnesses. In Lamb v Teva UK Ltd [2026] EAT 8, His Honour Judge James Tayler examined whether certain procedural irregularities necessarily rendered a dismissal unfair.

Craig Lamb, an Engineering Supervisor with electrical qualifications, was dismissed following a serious health and safety incident. A warehouse worker suffered an electric shock from a forklift charger with a damaged cable that Lamb had been made aware of but failed to properly remedy. The incident was categorised as a potential fatality.

Mr Lillington conducted the investigation despite having overheard the initial report of the fault to Lamb and providing a witness statement about this conversation. Ms Clark, who took notes during investigation meetings, had also been told by Lamb that he was unaware of the fault—evidence that contradicted CCTV footage and other witness accounts.

Lamb challenged the dismissal on several grounds: the dual involvement of both Lillington and Clark; evidence provided less than 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing; and an alleged comment that he was "done at the business" made before the hearing concluded.

The EAT's analysis

The EAT emphasised that whilst the ACAS Code suggests different people should conduct investigations and hearings "where practicable", there is no absolute rule preventing someone with limited involvement from investigating. The critical question under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 remains whether the employer acted reasonably in treating the reason as sufficient for dismissal, determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits.

Judge Tayler distinguished between prior involvement by a decision-maker—which often renders processes unfair—and involvement by an investigator. Lillington's relatively minor dual role, particularly where Lamb never challenged it during the disciplinary process despite knowing about the witness statement, did not breach natural justice principles. The tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Dobinson, as the actual decision-maker, had properly assessed all evidence independently.

On the late evidence regarding CCTV from 12 July, the EAT held it was not perverse to find this did not render the dismissal unfair, particularly as Lamb did not object to its introduction and it related directly to allegations already put to him.

Regarding the alleged pre-determination comment, the tribunal found it "not unlikely" that such a remark was made by one of the investigating managers. However, as none influenced Dobinson's decision, and the overall process remained "scrupulously fair", this did not vitiate the dismissal.

Principles reaffirmed

The judgement reinforces that employment tribunals must apply the statutory test in section 98(4) ERA, considering the overall fairness of the process rather than isolated procedural imperfections. The band of reasonable responses applies throughout, but as Judge Tayler noted in University of Exeter v Plaut, "the band is not infinitely wide."

The core tenets of natural justice remain paramount: employees must know the charge, have a fair opportunity to respond, and determinations must be made in good faith. Whether these requirements are met depends on substance over form, assessed against the circumstances of each case.

The EAT's decision demonstrates that whilst procedural best practice should be followed, minor deviations do not automatically render dismissals unfair where the overall process remains substantively fair and the decision-maker acts independently on reasonable grounds after adequate investigation.

Copyright & permissions