Judgment approved by the court Vaultex UK Ltd v Bialas critiques. Over-analysis of the reasoning process; being hypercritical of the way in which the decision is written; focusing too much on particular passages or turns of phrase to the neglect of the decision read in the round: those are all appellate weaknesses to avoid.” 23. Mummery LJ’s overall conclusion, reading the decision of the tribunal in that case as a whole, was that, whilst asking itself the correct question, the tribunal had initially set off on the wrong foot by setting out what the tribunal itself felt about the conduct. But ultimately it had answered the correct question when it had concluded that no reasonable employer would have dismissed for the one- off conduct in that case. The EAT was, he said, therefore, wrong to set aside the tribunal’s decision. Further, even if, contrary to his view, the EAT had been right to allow the appeal on the basis that the tribunal had applied the wrong test, it should have remitted the matter to a different employment tribunal for rehearing. 24. Moore-Bick LJ came to a different conclusion, as his reading was that the tribunal had come to its conclusion by reference to the facts as it found them to be rather than as the employer understood them to be. This led it to take a far less serious view of the conduct than had been taken by the employer. He considered the EAT was right to uphold the appeal, though wrong to dismiss the claim altogether, as it should have remitted the matter to a differently constituted tribunal. 25. The third member of the Court of Appeal in Fuller, Jackson LJ, concurred with Mummery LJ, and so the appeal from the EAT was allowed and the tribunal’s decision stood. 26. As the discussion in Fuller contemplates, where the EAT or Court of Appeal does conclude that a tribunal which has found a dismissal to be unfair has committed the substitution error, it must then decide whether to remit the matter for re-hearing. In some cases, it may consider that any employment tribunal properly applying the law to the facts will be bound to conclude that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, so that there is no need to remit, and a decision that the dismissal was fair can and should be substituted. Tayeh v Barchester Healthcare Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 29; [2013] IRLR 387 was an example of such a case. In other cases, the appeal body may conclude that this would © EAT 2024 Page 12 [2024] EAT 19