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

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

World Menopause Day

To mark this, ACAS has produced new guidance for managing the menopause at work, providing advice on the symptoms and potential impact of the menopause and the types of support that can be offered.

View blog

Sexual Harassment in the workplace – consequences of getting it wrong

A partner at a Magic Circle law firm has this week been ordered to pay £235,000 in fines and costs by a disciplinary tribunal, having been found guilty of breaching his professional obligations.

View blog

High Court finds against WASPI women

The High Court has rejected the judicial review claim brought by the campaign group BackTo60 against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

View blog

When does misconduct by a professional amount to professional misconduct?

The Court of Appeal has considered what amounts to professional conduct for the purposes of the MHPS in the case of Idu –v- The East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Foundation Trust.
The allegations raised against the Appellant surgeon included, amongst others, refusals to follow management instructions and inappropriate (rude, uncivil, and, on occasions, aggressive) verbal and written communications.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up