header-logo header-logo

31 July 2008
Issue: 7332 / Categories: Legal News , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employer wins landmark unfair dismissal case

Legal news

Delay in dealing with any part of the statutory dismissal procedure does not render the dismissal automatically unfair, the Court of Appeal has decided.

In Selvarajan v Wilmot the court ruled that the sacking of three employees by Bolton GP Dr Selvarajan, on the grounds of misconduct, was fair.

Selvarajan fired the trio for allegedly making false overtime claims. They said their dismissal was automatically unfair because there had been a delay of several months in hearing the appeals against the decision to sack them.

Although the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that where there was non compliance with any step or general requirement of the statutory procedure this would render the procedure incomplete and thus dismissals automatically unfair, it remitted the matter to tribunal to establish whether the delay in hearing the appeal was reasonable. Selvarajan appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Joanne Martin, solicitor at Davies Arnold Cooper, who acted for Selvarajan, says: “This decision makes it clear that completion of the steps of a statutory dismissal procedure is wholly separate to compliance with the general requirements of the statutory procedures. Failure to comply with a general requirement of a procedure is not of itself a failure to complete it. For as long as the statutory procedures remain in place, all employers and practitioners should be aware of this decision.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll