Paul Sullivan

Written by: Verilaw Editorial | Reviewed by: Paul Sullivan | ⏱ 3 min read

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed Ms Rukhsana Pasha’s appeal against a Watford Employment Tribunal’s finding that her summary dismissal for gross misconduct was fair. The appeal concerned unauthorised database look‑ups by a long‑serving immigration enforcement officer, the application of the ACAS Code, procedural defects, comparator treatment, delay and the meaning of “legitimate business need”.

Decision details

Court	Employment Appeal Tribunal
Decision date	17 March 2026
Case	Ms Rukhsana Pasha v The Home Office
Case reference	Pasha v The Home Office [2026] EAT 42
Judge(s)	Judge Barklem
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Category	Unfair dismissal
Legislation	Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 207
Official judgment	Pasha v The Home Office [2026] EAT 42

Background

Ms Pasha worked as an immigration enforcement officer from 1991 until her dismissal in February 2022. A 2020 audit identified unauthorised searches of personal data on the UK Visa Central Reference System (CRS) between 2006 and 2017. A 2013 staff notification classed look‑ups without a “legitimate business need” as gross misconduct carrying the risk of dismissal.

The ET found look‑ups on her then husband’s in‑laws in 2013, a colleague’s relatives in 2015 and wildcard searches on the same relatives in 2017, as well as a 2010 email from her Home Office account to a Pakistani customs contact sharing operational information outside formal channels. She was suspended in March 2021 with Mr Wilkinson as decision‑maker and Mr Miah as investigating manager.

Mr Miah’s investigation strayed beyond its remit and accepted at face value the claimant’s assertion that Mr Smith had authorised the 2017 searches. Mr Wilkinson contacted Mr Smith directly; Mr Smith denied any authorisation. Post‑hearing checks with Mr Edwards and Mr Newbould confirmed no legitimate basis existed, though these were not disclosed until after dismissal on 9 February 2022. An internal appeal in April 2022 failed.

Appeal

The ET dismissed the claim after a two‑day hearing in June 2023. Following a Rule 3(10) hearing, Judge Stout granted permission on six grounds: failure to apply the ACAS Code (ground 4); non‑disclosure of the Newbould/Edwards material (part of ground 5); comparator treatment (ground 7); alleged bad faith by Mr Wilkinson (ground 11); delay (ground 13); and the “legitimate business need” charge (limited aspects of grounds 10 and 12). Ms Leslie Millin of counsel appeared for the claimant; Mr Tom Kirk of counsel for the respondent.

Judgment

The EAT held that the ET had substantially complied with its duty under section 207 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, despite not citing the ACAS Code expressly. The Code is not prescriptive; breach does not automatically render a dismissal unfair. Mr Wilkinson’s direct approach to Mr Smith was a procedural shortcut causing no real prejudice, and the Newbould/Edwards enquiries were a “nil return” that could not have altered the outcome.

No detailed comparator material was adduced and no specific comparators were put to the decision‑maker in cross‑examination; the argument remained assertion only. On bad faith, there was no pleaded or evidential foundation; Judge Barklem found the ET’s written reasons careful and clear.

The EAT upheld the ET’s chronological analysis, finding no basis to infer that delay undermined the employer’s view of the misconduct given the longstanding zero‑tolerance policy. Investigating relatives or a colleague’s relatives for private ends cannot constitute a legitimate business need; once the claimant’s assertions of authorisation were rejected, the charge was properly made out.

Outcome

The EAT dismissed all permitted grounds and upheld the ET’s finding that dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the band of reasonable responses. No remittal was ordered; the Watford Employment Tribunal’s judgment stands.

---

Source: gov.uk