Securitay Ltd v Webster - Unfair dismissal finding was not based on range of reasonable responses and was "perverse"  EAT
An example of a case where a finding of unfair dismissal was perverse, such that the EAT was prepared to substitute its own (opposite) conclusion.
Mr Webster worked as a security guard, for a company whcih would provide security guard services to client firms. This meant that Mr Webster, who lived in Peterhead, had no guarantee in his contract as to his place or hours of work, nor rate of pay, since these would vary with any given job. When an important client, ASCO, complained, Securitay discovered in a "spot-check" that Mr Webster was not carrying out his duties: following a disciplinary hearing it dismissed Mr Webster. He succeeded in an internal appeal and was reinstated with a written warning; however Securitay considered that he could not go back to work at ASCO and so, having no other clients in Peterhead, it posted Mr Webster to a position elsewhere. There followed an impasse - Mr Webster's solicitor wanted details of teh new position, Securitay wanted confirmation that (given he had stated otherwise) Mr Webster did actually want to return to work. Following a tribunal hearing on the separate question of holiday pay, Securitay wrote to Mr Webster indicating that it understood he wished to return to work and should report to the specified site. Mr Webster wrote making all sorts of allegations against his manager at Securitay who had initially dismissed him - the allegations including that he had lied on oath at tribunal. At this stage he refused to work at the new site.