header-logo header-logo

Employer wins landmark unfair dismissal case

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

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

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Firm grows London practice with two partner promotions

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Government contracts and procurement practice expands with London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll