Gross Misconduct in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R Darren Williams v Police Appeals Tribunal Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis (Interested Party)
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 02 Noviembre 2016

    In my judgment, the importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the police service is constant, regardless of the nature of the gross misconduct under consideration. What may vary will be the extent to which the particular gross misconduct threatens the preservation of such confidence and respect.

  • Adesokan v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 Enero 2017

    The focus is on the damage to the relationship between the parties. Dishonesty and other deliberate actions which poison the relationship will obviously fall into the gross misconduct category, but so in an appropriate case can an act of gross negligence.

  • Preiss v General Dental Council
    • Privy Council
    • 17 Julio 2001

    It is settled that serious professional misconduct does not require moral turpitude. Something more is required than a degree of negligence enough to give rise to civil liability but not calling for the opprobrium that inevitably attaches to the disciplinary offence. The core and most serious shortcoming was summarised by the PCC as failure to ensure that the state of the patient's oral health was appropriate in view of the ambitious treatment plan.

  • Dr Caroline Jane Ardron v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 20 Noviembre 2018

    (9) The concept of “gross misconduct” in the employment law context connotes misconduct which justifies summary dismissal, and which therefore amounts to a repudiatory breach of contract. There is no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal.

  • Johnson v Unisys Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Marzo 2001

    Consistently with these provisions, Mr Johnson was written a letter of engagement which stated his salary and summarised the terms and conditions of his employment, including the notice period. Apart from the statement that in the event of gross misconduct, the company could terminate his employment without notice, it made no reference to disciplinary matters.

  • Briscoe v Lubrizol Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 Abril 2002

    To draw a distinction between gross misconduct and repudiatory conduct evincing an intention no longer to be bound by the contract is in my judgment to make a distinction without a real difference. It may be more common in employment cases to deal with gross misconduct, but that is essentially a form of repudiatory conduct. The two propositions appear to have been so treated by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle in Neary and Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288 when he said at paragraph 20:—

  • Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust v Bowater
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 03 Febrero 2011

    I agree with Stanley Burnton LJ that dismissal of the appellant for her lewd comment was outside the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer in the circumstances of the case. But the employer cannot be the final arbiter of its own conduct in dismissing an employee. It is for the ET to make its judgment always bearing in mind that the test is whether dismissal is within the range of reasonable options open to a reasonable employer.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT