The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that including details of previous non-disciplinary incidents in the investigation report did not make the dismissal unfair.
In Theedom v Nourish Trading Ltd (t/a CSP Recruitment) and another  IRLR 866 HC, the High Court dismissed an employee's libel claim in respect of emails sent by his employer about his misconduct.
Definition from the XpertHR glossary.
In Cavenagh v William Evans Ltd  IRLR 679 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employer that elected to terminate a contract of employment by making explicit use of an express pay in lieu of notice clause could not avoid the obligation to make the payment in lieu of notice by relying on prior misconduct by the employee that was not noticed until after the dismissal.
Helen Samuel, associate solicitor and Anna Bridges, associate solicitor, at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
Practical guidance on handling gross misconduct dismissals, including which offences amount to gross misconduct; suspension during investigation; criminal proceedings; and the disciplinary hearing.
In Airbus UK Ltd v Webb  IRLR 309, the Court of Appeal held that Diosynth Ltd v Thomson did not establish a rule of law that spent warnings must be ignored for all purposes. On the facts, where a spent warning was not part of the reason for the dismissal, but the basis for the employer's refusal to exercise leniency in respect of later gross misconduct, neither Diosynth nor the wording of s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 rendered the dismissal necessarily unfair.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers varying contracts of employment.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to summary dismissal.