Employment Appeal Tribunal · [2026] EAT 162

Fargro Ltd v David Hide

Fargro used external HR consultants to investigate and conduct disciplinary and appeal hearings before dismissing an employee.

Employment Appeal Tribunal21 Oct 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

An external HR provider can run meetings and prepare recommendations, but the employer cannot outsource ownership of the decision.
Fargro used external HR consultants to investigate and conduct disciplinary and appeal hearings before dismissing an employee.

Use this to check

Using external consultants to investigate and conduct hearings was not inherently unfair.
The employer's managing director remained the actual decision-maker for both dismissal and appeal.
The EAT said the Tribunal had to consider whether Mr Hide could explain himself properly to that decision-maker.

Decision snapshot

What happened
- David Hide worked for Fargro as an integrated pest management specialist from January 2013.
- In November 2019, his manager asked him to remove a computer screensaver showing colleagues at a football match because it could cause discomfort.
- A dispute followed about compliance with management instructions, political conversations at work and use of company devices.
- A colleague also alleged bullying.
What the court had to decide
- Fargro argued that the Tribunal should also have reduced compensation for Mr Hide's own conduct.
- Mr Hide cross-appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had not dealt with other defects that could affect both fairness and the likelihood of dismissal after a fair process.
What the court decided
- Fargro's appeal on contributory fault was dismissed.
- The original Tribunal had corrected its statement that direct evidence was required and explained that the evidence did not allow reliable findings about what Mr Hide had actually done or his level of culpability.
- Fargro had not identified the evidence needed to support a further reduction.

Practical impact

Practical read

An external HR provider can run meetings and prepare recommendations, but the employer cannot outsource ownership of the decision.
The person signing the dismissal letter should understand the evidence, test the recommendation, consider the employee's explanation and record their own reasons.
Where practicable, an internal appeal should be decided by someone other than the original decision-maker.
Using a different consultant did not solve the problem here because the same managing director made both employer decisions.

Practical takeaways

Using external consultants to investigate and conduct hearings was not inherently unfair.
The employer's managing director remained the actual decision-maker for both dismissal and appeal.
The EAT said the Tribunal had to consider whether Mr Hide could explain himself properly to that decision-maker.
The Tribunal also needed findings about access to documents and consideration of mitigation.
Fargro's contributory-fault appeal failed because it did not identify a reliable factual basis for a further reduction.

The result: external HR was not the problem by itself

The EAT did not say that businesses must run every disciplinary stage internally. Fargro could use consultants to investigate, hold meetings and make recommendations.

The employer still had to own the decision. The Employment Tribunal had not answered whether Mr Hide could put his case properly to the managing director who accepted the recommendation without meeting him.

What happened inside the process

The dispute began with a screensaver, management instructions, political conversations and company-device use. A colleague also alleged bullying. Fargro then brought in three Croner consultants for the investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal.

The disciplinary consultant rejected the bullying allegation but upheld six others and recommended dismissal. The managing director accepted the recommendation. A different consultant heard the appeal, but the same managing director rejected it.

The questions the first Tribunal had not answered

Questions to work through

Was Mr Hide shown the documents he was questioned about during the investigation?
Did the employer properly consider mitigation before choosing dismissal?
Did he have a fair opportunity to explain himself to the managing director who made the decision?
How would those points change the chance of dismissal after a fair process?

The EAT did not answer those factual questions itself. It sent them back because the Tribunal that heard the evidence had to decide them.

Why the compensation reduction had to be revisited

A Polkey reduction reflects the chance that the employee would have been dismissed even if the employer had used a fair process. The original Tribunal assessed that chance at 66.66%.

That estimate could not safely stand until all material defects were identified. If the remitted Tribunal finds no additional unfairness, the percentage may remain. If it finds further defects, it must reconsider the counterfactual.

A workable process for a smaller employer

External support is often sensible where a business has limited HR capacity. The engagement should make clear who investigates, who recommends and who makes each employer decision.

Key points

Appoint the dismissal and appeal decision-makers before the investigation starts
Give the employee the allegations and usable copies of the evidence
Require the consultant to record the employee's response and any mitigation
Have the employer decision-maker test the recommendation and ask follow-up questions
Use a genuinely separate appeal decision-maker where practicable
Keep a reasoned employer decision rather than adopting the consultant's conclusion automatically

Common questions

Can an employer use an external HR consultant for discipline?

Yes. The EAT did not treat the use of consultants as inherently unfair. The employer must still make the decision and ensure the employee has a fair opportunity to address the case that the actual decision-maker will consider.

Must the dismissal decision-maker meet the employee?

Not in every case. The EAT said the absence of a meeting is not automatically unfair. The practical question is whether the employee had a proper opportunity to explain the evidence, mitigation and response to the person making the decision.

Can the same manager decide dismissal and appeal?

It creates a serious fairness risk. The Employment Tribunal treated the same managing director making both decisions as unfair in this case. Smaller employers should plan the available decision-makers early and consider an appropriately independent appeal arrangement.

What happened to the 66.66% compensation reduction?

It was set aside for reconsideration. The Employment Tribunal must first decide the outstanding allegations of procedural unfairness, then reassess the chance that Mr Hide would have been dismissed after a fair process. The EAT did not choose a new percentage.

Did the EAT decide whether Mr Hide committed misconduct?

No final factual determination of all alleged conduct was made on appeal. Fargro's contributory-fault argument failed because the evidence and findings did not establish a reliable level of culpability for a further reduction.

How Sprintlaw can help

Employment Law

Update history

Case21 Oct 2026

EAT examines employer control of outsourced disciplinary process

The EAT held that using external HR consultants was not automatically unfair, but the Tribunal still had to decide whether the employee could explain himself properly to the employer's actual decision-maker.