header-logo header-logo

Back to basics

16 January 2015 / Shane Crawford
Issue: 7636 / Categories: Features , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail
shanecrawford

When can disciplinary procedures be instigated & what process applies? Shane Crawford reports

It is regularly assumed that if a disciplinary process exists, by virtue of a reference within the contract of employment, then an employer is entitled to implement it, if acting in good faith without rebuke.

Two recent cases have highlighted the importance of asking two basic questions before the commencement of a disciplinary process:

  • What disciplinary process is applicable according to the contract of employment?
  • When is it appropriate to implement the disciplinary procedure?

Davies v London Borough of Haringey [2014] EWCH 3393 (QB) emphasised the importance of close scrutiny of the contract of employment to determine which disciplinary process had effect and therefore, who had the power to suspend.

Mian v Coventry University [2014] EWCA Civ 1275 revisited the test for an employer’s decision to commence disciplinary proceedings.

Determining who has the power to discipline an employee

The High Court in Davies v London Borough of Haringey was faced with a challenge by a teacher to the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll