End of employment
In Mansfield Hosiery Mills Lid v Bromley, the EAT emphasises that it is only in exceptional cases that a failure to follow a correct procedure will not result in a finding of unfair dismissal.
In Post Office v PA Mughal  IRLR 178 EAT, the EAT established that the general test of fairness in dismissing a probationary employee is whether the employer took reasonable steps to maintain appraisal of the probationer throughout the probationary period, giving guidance by advice or warning, and whether an honest effort was made to determine whether he or she came up to the required standard.
In East Lindsey District Council v G E Daubney  IRLR 181 EAT, the EAT held that a failure to investigate an employee's medical condition and prognosis prior to dismissal for capability would normally result in unfair dismissal.
In C A Treganowan v Robert Knee & Co Ltd  IRLR 247 HC, the High Court held that a clash of personalities between employees constitutes "another substantial reason" for dismissal within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.
In S Futty v Brekkes (D & D) Ltd  IRLR 130 IT, the Industrial Tribunal held that an off-the-cuff remark by a foreman to an employee that if he didn't like his job he could leave had its own particular meaning in the fish trade and could not be held to constitute a dismissal.
In RJ Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd  IRLR 379 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee's time limit for presenting his unfair dismissal claim had expired. He knew his rights and was being advised by solicitors well before the expiry of the time limit.
In RS Components Ltd v RE Irwin  IRLR 239 NIRC, the National Industrial Relations Court held that it was reasonable to terminate the employment of an employee who refused to sign a covenant restricting him operating in competition with the company for one year after leaving the company's employment.
In D C Foot v Eastern Counties Timber Co Ltd  IRLR 83b IT, the Industrial Tribunal held that the dismissal of an employee whose spouse sets up a rival business may be justified.
In Dunk v George Waller and Son  2 All ER 630 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the purpose of an apprenticeship agreement is for the apprentice to receive training in order to obtain better employment, and if the employer terminates the agreement and deprives the apprentice of the training, the apprentice is entitled to earnings under the agreement for the remainder of the apprenticeship and damages for future loss of earnings and prospects.
In Bouzourou v The Ottoman Bank  AC 271 JCPC, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that an employee can refuse to transfer to a geographical area where the employee would be at personal risk, but cannot refuse to go in the absence of personal danger.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to the end of employment.
XpertHR® is part of the LexisNexis® Risk Solutions portfolio of brands.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.
Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis Risk Solutions
© 2024 LexisNexis Risk Solutions.