Judgment approved by the court Vaultex UK Ltd v Bialas not be an inevitable outcome of applying the law correctly, and so the matter is remitted to the tribunal. London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] EWCA Civ 220; [2009] IRLR 563 is an example of a case of that type. Every case must be considered carefully by reference to its particular facts and a fair consideration of the particular reasons of the employment tribunal and how they have been expressed. Arguments, Discussion, Conclusions 27. We had skeleton arguments on both sides and heard oral argument this morning. We will highlight in what follows what seem to us in summary to have been the main points on each side. 28. As we have noted, ground 1 of the appeal contends that, despite stating that it had applied a band of reasonable responses test in relation to the sanction, the tribunal in its substantive reasoning did not do so and committed the substitution error. Ground 2 is put in the alternative as being that the decision on this point was perverse, or as being outside the band of reasonable decisions that the tribunal could have reached. We do not think that anything turns on the doctrinal difference between these two ways of putting the substantive point of the ground 2 challenge. Either of them would have the consequence, if well-founded, that the EAT would be bound to allow this appeal and to substitute a finding that the dismissal was fair, on the basis that any tribunal correctly applying the band of reasonable responses test to the facts found, would be bound to conclude that the decision to dismiss was within that band. 29. In summary, Ms Clarke’s principal strands of argument in support of either or both grounds were as follows. 30. First, she noted that, even on the tribunal’s own view, a final written warning would have been a reasonable sanction. The question then arose, she postulated, as to why the tribunal considered that the conduct could be viewed as serious enough to warrant a final written warning, the sanction just below dismissal, but yet that no reasonable employer could have dismissed for it. © EAT 2024 Page 13 [2024] EAT 19