Pasha v Home Office [2026] EAT 42

By Jo Seery, Professional Support Lawyer

Background 

Ms Pasha was employed by the Home Office as an immigration enforcement officer from 1991 until her dismissal in February 2022. Following an audit in 2020, it was discovered that she had accessed the Home Office’s CRS IT system on multiple occasions between 2006 and 2017, including searches relating to family members and relatives of a colleague. 

The Home Office had a clear policy that accessing IT systems without a legitimate business need amounted to gross misconduct. Ms Pasha maintained that she acted in good faith and believed she had verbal authorisation to carry out some searches. 

Following a disciplinary process, which the Employment Tribunal accepted contained some procedural shortcomings, Ms Pasha was summarily dismissed. Her internal appeal was unsuccessful and she brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The Tribunal dismissed her claim, and she appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). 

Key Issues 

The appeal raised issues including: 

• Whether failures to follow best practice under the ACAS Code rendered the dismissal unfair
• Whether post‑hearing enquiries by the decision‑maker undermined procedural fairness
• Whether delay in the disciplinary process affected fairness
• Whether Ms Pasha had a legitimate business need for the searches

Outcome 

The EAT (HHJ Barklem presiding) dismissed the appeal. 

It held that: 

• Procedural shortcomings did not render the dismissal unfair where the outcome would have been the same
• Tribunals are not required to cite the ACAS Code expressly, provided its principles are considered
• The decision‑maker’s additional enquiries, although a defect, could only have assisted the claimant
• Accessing IT systems to search for family members or those connected to colleagues could not amount to a legitimate business need

The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. 

Why This Matters 

This case confirms that: 

• Not every procedural defect will make a dismissal unfair
• Substance will prevail over form where misconduct is clearly established
• Good faith belief does not justify breaches of clear IT usage policies

It reinforces the importance of robust IT policies and confirms that misuse involving personal connections is likely to justify dismissal, even where the employee has long service.