Please sign in with your existing account details.
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?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
Senior Associate
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up