EE Ltd

Judgment approved by the court for handing down Chand v EE Ltd © EAT 2026 1 [2026] EAT 17 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 17 Case No: EA-2023-001316-RS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 11 February 2026 Before: THE HON. LORD FAIRLEY, PRESIDENT ------------------------ Between: Elizabeth Chand Appellant and EE Limited Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jeffrey Jupp KC and Patricia Leonard (instructed through Advocate) for the Appellant Thomas Cordrey (instructed by BT Group PLC Legal Services) for the Respondent Hearing date: 15 January 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down Chand v EE Ltd © EAT 2026 2 [2026] EAT 17 SUMMARY Unfair dismissal; reason for dismissal; composite reason; fairness The claimant was dismissed by the respondent for the stated reason of gross misconduct. The conduct relied upon was made up of four separate incidents. The respondent concluded that each incident was fraudulent. The Employment Tribunal found that the respondent did not have a reasonable basis to conclude that any of the four matters amounted to fraud. It nevertheless held that the dismissal of the claimant was fair because one of the four incidents was a serious departure from the respondent’s policy. The claimant appealed against that conclusion, arguing that what the Tribunal had found was a belief by the employer in a composite reason for the dismissal. Important elements of that belief had not been held on reasonable grounds. Accordingly, the only conclusion properly open to the Tribunal was that the dismissal was unfair. The respondent cross-appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in concluding that there was...