The EAT case of Mrs C Clarke v Zurich General Services Ltd is worth a perusal on two points (a) the unusual circumstances which led to the dismissal of Mrs Clarke and (2) confirmation of how difficult it is argue ‘perversity’ as the basis of an appeal in the absence of any incorrect finding on a point of law.

In this case, Zurich hired a private investigator to look into possible fraud by Mrs Clarke in claiming benefits from the Respondent to which she was not entitled.  The investigator was taken by force into Mrs Clarke’s property, detained against his will and threatened with a machete.   Mrs Clarke alleged she returned home to find the investigator being held by her husband and played no part in this.   The EAT found that, although there was evidence to support Mrs Clarke’s contention that the Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that she had been involved in the imprisonment.