Jordans has teamed up with Barrister Allan Roberts from Guildhall Chambers to create this helpful tool which enables users to simply and quickly estimate the likely pension loss for claimants in Employment Tribunal cases.
Try out this free service today!
Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd  EWCA Civ 94; (2015) EMPLR 026
18 February 2015
Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Richards, Patten and Vos LJJ
For a misconduct dismissal to be fair, the employer’s
investigation into the misconduct must be reasonable. It does not have to be
100% comprehensive. Not every line of defence put forward by the employee needs
to be investigated if, viewed overall, the investigation was reasonable.
S’s mileage claims vastly exceeded the AA mileage figures for
the journeys undertaken. This applied to every journey. S said at his
disciplinary hearing that a number of factors explained the discrepancies -
difficulty parking, one-way road systems and road works causing closures and
diversions. His employers concluded it was not plausible that there was a
legitimate explanation for every single journey. They concluded S was guilty of
gross misconduct and dismissed him.
S argued that his dismissal was unfair because the
employers had not analysed every journey to check whether the reasons for the
extra mileage were valid. The tribunal, upheld by the EAT and Court of Appeal,
held employers are not required to investigate every single line of defence put
forward so long as, viewed as a whole, the investigation was reasonable.