Unfair dismissal; SOSR; a sound business reason can justify dismissal for refusing new terms. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Unfair dismissal; reasonable responses; established the 'band of reasonable responses' test. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Unfair dismissal; compensation; if a dismissal is procedurally unfair but the employee would have been dismissed anyway, compensation is reduced. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Unfair dismissal; remedies; the compensatory award under s.123(1) ERA 1996 is confined to financial loss, non-pecuniary loss (injury to feelings, manner of dismissal) is not recoverable. The House of Lords unanimously confirmed the orthodox position that had prevailed in all tribunals prior to the Court of Appeal's contrary decision. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Notice of dismissal; retraction. A notice of dismissal, once given, cannot be unilaterally retracted and may be withdrawn only by consent. The 'special circumstances' exception is not a true exception but merely allows the giver to show he never intended to give notice at all. Note the party order: CF Capital plc was the appellant.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Unfair dismissal; conduct; gross misconduct and sanction. A finding of gross misconduct does not automatically mean that dismissal falls within the band of reasonable responses: the tribunal must still ask whether dismissal was reasonable in the particular circumstances, taking account of mitigation such as long service, a previously unblemished record and the consequences of dismissal for the employee. To move straight from gross misconduct to fairness of dismissal is an error of law. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Affirmed by Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 1626 (2014-10-29)
Unfair dismissal; consistency; dismissing an employee for a safety breach while not disciplining the manager was unfair.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Construction of dismissal letters; EDT. A letter headed 'without prejudice', incorrectly asserting termination by mutual agreement and enclosing a draft settlement agreement, was nonetheless correctly construed as a letter of dismissal: it clearly communicated unilateral termination on an identified date, with a clear demarcation between the termination part and the settlement proposal, and did not come out of the blue. Applies the Chapman v Letheby non-technical, reasonable-employee approach to identifying whether and when an employer's document terminates the contract.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.