Employment law 2014 preview: unfair dismissal
Will dismissal always fall within the range of reasonable responses where gross misconduct is found? In Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust, the tribunal found the employee had been guilty of gross misconduct and the consequential dismissal therefore fair.
However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held the tribunal was wrong to go from a finding of gross misconduct to the proposition that dismissal must then inevitably fall within the range of reasonable responses as this gave no room for considering whether, although the misconduct was gross and dismissal almost inevitable, mitigating factors might mean that dismissal was not reasonable…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
If you think that the Housing Grants Act makes payment (or not) clear, keep reading for the latest case...
You may be forgiven for thinking that as of 27 February 2015, the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act), has little effect in terms of its payment and adjudication provisions.
Arnold J does battle again with the complexities of European Trade Mark law in a dispute about the trademark SUPREME for foodstuffs for rabbits and other small animals.