Dismissal
In East Lindsey District Council v G E Daubney [1977] IRLR 181 EAT, the EAT held that a failure to investigate an employee's medical condition and prognosis prior to dismissal for capability would normally result in unfair dismissal.
In C A Treganowan v Robert Knee & Co Ltd [1975] IRLR 247 HC, the High Court held that a clash of personalities between employees constitutes "another substantial reason" for dismissal within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.
In S Futty v Brekkes (D & D) Ltd [1974] IRLR 130 IT, the Industrial Tribunal held that an off-the-cuff remark by a foreman to an employee that if he didn't like his job he could leave had its own particular meaning in the fish trade and could not be held to constitute a dismissal.
In RJ Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1973] IRLR 379 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee's time limit for presenting his unfair dismissal claim had expired. He knew his rights and was being advised by solicitors well before the expiry of the time limit.
In RS Components Ltd v RE Irwin [1973] IRLR 239 NIRC, the National Industrial Relations Court held that it was reasonable to terminate the employment of an employee who refused to sign a covenant restricting him operating in competition with the company for one year after leaving the company's employment.
In D C Foot v Eastern Counties Timber Co Ltd [1972] IRLR 83b IT, the Industrial Tribunal held that the dismissal of an employee whose spouse sets up a rival business may be justified.
In Dunk v George Waller and Son [1970] 2 All ER 630 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the purpose of an apprenticeship agreement is for the apprentice to receive training in order to obtain better employment, and if the employer terminates the agreement and deprives the apprentice of the training, the apprentice is entitled to earnings under the agreement for the remainder of the apprenticeship and damages for future loss of earnings and prospects.
In Bouzourou v The Ottoman Bank [1930] AC 271 JCPC, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that an employee can refuse to transfer to a geographical area where the employee would be at personal risk, but cannot refuse to go in the absence of personal danger.
In The Ottoman Bank v Chakarian [1930] AC 277 JCPC, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that an employee can refuse to transfer to a geographical area where the employee would be at personal risk.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.