Employment case study: Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025]

The recent EAT case of Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department concerned the question of withholding key information on a job application. Mr Easton failed to inform his employer that he had previously been dismissed for gross misconduct, and (less importantly) of a three month period of unemployment.

The case turned on whether the employer’s decision to treat this omission as grounds for dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

Background of Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Mr Easton previously worked for the Home Office from 2002 until his dismissal in June 2016 for gross misconduct. He brought proceedings at the time alleging that his dismissal was due to whistleblowing and a settlement was reached between the parties. No admissions were made by the Home Office and notably the reason for dismissal remained as gross misconduct.

In 2019, Mr Easton applied for another role with the Home Office as an Immigration Officer. As part of the application process, he completed a blank online application form. Mr Easton was appointed and not long after his employment commenced, his employer was notified of his prior termination for gross dismissal by his former line manager.

A disciplinary investigation followed to investigate whether Mr Easton had dishonestly failed to disclose “material information” on his application form, relating to his previous dismissal. Following this investigation, Mr Easton was (again) dismissed for gross misconduct as he had been dishonest in his application.

Employment Tribunal decision

Mr Easton brought several Employment Tribunal (ET) claims including unfair dismissal, alleging that the allegations from the 2016 dismissal had tainted his dismissal from the role of Immigration Officer.

The Tribunal held his dismissal to be fair, finding that Mr Easton had understood that any dismissals and periods of unemployment would be relevant and material information to disclose. Mr Easton had confirmed as part of his application that ‘I understand my application may be rejected or I may be subject to disciplinary action if I’ve given false information or withheld relevant details’.

Mr Easton appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Employment Appeal decision

Mr Easton’s appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was unsuccessful.

The ET was entitled to conclude that the employer’s decision to treat Mr Easton’s dishonesty in completing his application form as grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct. This was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The EAT found that despite not specifying the detail required in the application form, it clearly required any information that the employer would rely upon. This was reiterated by the declaration Mr Easton signed on the application which confirmed his understanding that the application may be rejected, or the applicant may be subject to disciplinary action for providing false information or withholding relevant details. The EAT held there was no ambiguity in what the form was requiring of him.

It was held that the reason Mr Easton was dismissed was due to a genuine and reasonable belief in his dishonesty. It was for this reason that Mr Easton was dismissed, not because of the alleged misconduct leading to his dismissal in 2016.

In relation to Mr Easton’s argument that the Home Office was already aware of his previous employment history, the EAT accepted the employer’s argument that they are a large organisation operating as an umbrella for smaller organisations, and that it should not be assumed there is a “collective corporate memory of all HR records”.

Take aways

This case provides a useful insight for employers on the benefits of structuring application forms so as to elicit all the necessary detail expected from applicants.

It is generally advisable for employers to ensure that application systems specifically  require the applicant’s full employment history. This includes exact dates of roles as opposed to a year by year breakdown. It may also be appropriate to ask specific questions such as ‘reason for leaving your previous role’, and ‘please explain any gaps in your employment’ so as to ensure the right applicant is appointed to the role.

Contact us

Jemima Webber is a solicitor in our employment law team. If you have any questions about any of the issues covered in this article, or need legal advice, please get in touch with the team today.