Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 29 June 2004 Before
Employer's genuine and reasonable belief. Whether dismissal was fair. Relationship between two clauses in contract of employment - one re gross misconduct, the other re bringing the employer into serious disrepute � the latter only giving an express right � to dismiss. Duress at disciplinary hearing. Relevance of ACAS code. Perversity. Appeal dismissed.
They noted that Mr Kumar was himself also summarily dismissed and had not made any claim of unfair dismissal. They also noted that during the course of the hearing before them Mr Hack had alleged that he was under duress during the disciplinary investigation carried out by his employers. The Employment Tribunal made a specific finding that they could not find any evidence to substantiate that allegation.
That is a comparison between 5 (b) which did not constitute gross misconduct and 5 (r) which did. We accept Mr Martin's submission that it is inappropriate to say that the penalty is only available if there is a lesser breach. That too seems to us to be an unsustainable argument.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.