header-logo header-logo

14 March 2008
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Webb v Airbus UK Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 49, [2008] All ER (D) 94 (Feb)

Under s 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), it is open to a tribunal to find that a dismissal for misconduct was fair, even though the employer took account of the employee’s previous similar misconduct, which had been the subject of an expired final warning.

The question to be determined under s 98(4) is whether or not the employer had acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating the reason for dismissal as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee. The fact that the warning had expired did not make the earlier misconduct an irrelevant circumstance under s 98(4).

 

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

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll