0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

a reasonable approach to investigating gross misconduct

20 February 2015

In Shrestha v Genesis Housing the Court of Appeal confirmed that employers do not have to investigate every line of defence put forward by an employee as long as the investigation is reasonable as a whole.

Mr Shrestha put in mileage claims, which were higher in 2011 than usual. On review, the mileages claimed were significantly higher than AA route-planner figures for the same journeys (sometimes nearly double). The reasons given were difficulty in parking, one-way road systems and diversions. The employer did not ask about every single journey because it was not considered plausible that he would have an explanation for each trip. He was dismissed for gross misconduct.

The employee’s unfair dismissal claim was rejected by the tribunal and the EAT and Court of Appeal agreed. The court’s decision is a victory for common sense, as it made it clear that to require an employer to investigate each line of an employee’s defence unless it was manifestly false or unarguable would be too narrow an approach.

related opinions

Home Office Central Registry for modern slavery statement goes live - first universities publish statements

The Home Office recently launched a central registry for modern slavery statements. A growing number of educational organisations, including a number of universities, have published statements on the registry.

View blog

Equal pay at ASDA stores - appeal to the Supreme Court unsuccessful

35,000 workers working in ASDA’s retail business sought to compare themselves to workers at distribution depots for equal pay purposes. Find out more about this Employment Appeal Tribunal.

View blog

Supreme Court confirms that sleep ins are not working time

The Supreme Court judgment represents the conclusion on whether or not “sleep in time” should be classified as working time, when calculating the National Minimum Wage (NMW).

View blog

Mencap case: No entitlement to National Minimum Wage for sleep-in shifts

In a pivotal and much anticipated judgment for the social care sector, the Supreme Court has ruled that workers are not entitled to the National Minimum Wage for all time spent on a sleep-in shift.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up