In the course of an employment tribunal hearing for unfair dismissal, issues arose as to the true reason for the dismissal and whether it had been reasonable for the respondent to conclude that the claimant was guilty of dishonesty.
A witness for the respondent had given evidence stating that he understood that the police had referred a file concerning the claimant to the Crown Prosecution Service. No criminal charges were ever brought though. The employment judge proceeded to hear the issue of unfair dismissal without the claimant giving evidence, stating that there nothing relevant to be cross-examined at that hearing. The claimant appealed.
On appeal, it was held that the claimant’s evidence and cross-examination of it was relevant to the issues the employment judge had to decide. He should not have proceeded without hearing it. He should have waited to see if the claimant had claimed any privilege against self-incrimination or made an application to adjourn the hearing.
The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant was employed as a porter who was expected to work a 96 hour shift cycle. It was found that between 2007 and 2014 on 41 occasions the claimant had claimed overtime on the basis that another porter was on leave whereas on those dates, records show the other porter was at work. There had been an overpayment of approximately £7,000. The claimant was dismissed on the grounds of dishonesty. Whilst he accepted that the overtime was wrongly claimed, he stated it was by reason of error, not dishonesty.
A woman has won damages in a medical negligence claim on behalf of her son for injuries sustained at his birth. The case centred around a doctor’s duty to ensure that patients are aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment.More Info
The days of poison pen letters may be in the past but the tendency of some individuals to publish offensive comments about others is 'alive and well' and, indeed, has increased significantly. Unfortunately, however, our laws struggle to keep up with the rate of change.More Info
In a very rare, but very welcome development, the government is offering refunds to people that it has decided that it overcharged in the past. If you applied for a Lasting Power of Attorney between the dates of 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2017 you are entitled to a partial refund of your fee.More Info
Partner Hannah Jones comments on an interesting recent case that was before the Court of Appeal. “Were the flowers that you recently purchased from the florist “picked” or “mown”? This may seem like an unnecessarily fine distinction but it was a distinction that recently became crucial for a trader in dried flowers in Ipswich”.More Info