Law reports

This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Public disgrace could justify dismissal

This report relates to 1 case(s)

expand
Post Office v Liddiard [2001] All ER (D) 46 (Jun) CA (3 other reports)
- Courts of Appeal conflict over definition of detriment
  
  Date:
  
  1 October 2001
  
  Two apparently contradictory judgements address whether treatment must have any material consequences to constitute a detriment under discrimination law. Plus, cases on Tupe, termination payments and unfair dismissal for misconduct unrelated to employment
- Case roundup: TUPE transfers and unfair dismissal
  
  Date:
  
  21 August 2001
  
  This week's case roundup, covering failure to inform and consult on a TUPE transfer and dismissal as a result of bringing an employer into disrepute.
- Unfair dismissal: Tribunal wrongly held convicted football hooligan's dismissal to be unfair
  
  Date:
  
  1 August 2001
  
  In Post Office v Liddiard, the Court of Appeal sets aside an employment tribunal's decision that the dismissal of an employee following his involvement in football hooliganism was unfair.

Organisations worried about damage to their reputations from the out-of-hours misconduct of employees could be justified in sacking them.

Please log in to XpertHR to read the rest of this article

Email address:

Password:

Forgotten password?

Keep me logged in for 30 days. Is this safe?

Athens | Shibboleth

Read more items tagged with the same topics

End of employment
- Dismissal
  - Unfair dismissal
  - Misconduct dismissals

Manage your tracked topics>

About this resource

Published date: 1 October 2001
Publisher: RBI
Source:: Employers' Law

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.