Employment Misrepresentation: EAT Upholds Dismissal for Non-Disclosure of Prior Misconduct

In Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force) [2025] EAT 15, the Claimant worked as an Immigration Officer for the Ministry of Defence (‘MoD’), but on 13^th June 2016 he was dismissed for gross misconduct. Three months later, the Claimant started a new role with the Department for Work and Pensions, but in May 2019 he applied for the role of Immigration Officer with the Border Force.

As part of the application process for Border Force, he was required to give details of his employment history, although he was only provided with a blank textbox titled ‘employment history’. The Claimant provided details of his previous employments, but he referred only to the years he worked in these employments (thus not revealing the three-month gap), and he did not volunteer any information about why he left his previous role with the Home Office (thus not revealing he had been dismissed). He also ticked a box to indicate his understanding that he may be subject to disciplinary action if he gave false or misleading information within his application. He also failed to volunteer this information at his interview.

The Claimant’s dishonesty came to light when a previous manager of the Claimant’s had seen him in his new role, and alerted the Border Force of his dismissal from the MoD. The Claimant was eventually dismissed by the Border Force for dishonesty in withholding relevant information from his application form.

The Employment Tribunal’s Decision

The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) dismissed the Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal on the basis that the Border Force reasonably believed that the Claimant had been guilty of misconduct in failing to disclose material information about his earlier employment, with belief being based on reasonable grounds and its investigation to establish those grounds also being reasonable.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s Appeal

It was suggested by the Claimant that the ET had failed to engage with the application form used by the Border Force, in that they offered no guidance on how to complete this section of the form. The Claimant therefore argued that it was left to the discretion of the applicant to decide what information to include in this section of application form, and he had completed the application to the best of his ability and knowledge, and importantly without wilfully withholding information.

The EAT rejected the Claimant’s appeal. It accepted that the ET had in mind the relevant test when determining a claim for unfair dismissal where conduct was the purported reason for dismissal, and specifically the extent to which the Border Force had relied on his omissions on the application form relating to his employment history to justify his dismissal, which the EAT found was unimpeachable as within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.

Considerations

Whilst the EAT’s decision does not lay down any particular authority or proposition of law, it may serve as a helpful reminder to applicants for employment that they must provide accurate information, that they be prepared to explain any gaps in their employment history, but ultimately they be honest in the entire application process – omissions can amount to mistruths.