There is no common law contractual remedy for financial or other loss allegedly flowing from the manner or circumstances of an employee's dismissal, holds the House of Lords in Johnson v Unisys Ltd.
In a case where misconduct is admitted by the employee, the requirement of reasonableness in s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relates not only to the outcome in terms of the penalty imposed by the employer, but also to the process by which the employer arrived at that decision, holds the Court of Appeal in Whitbread plc (trading as Whitbread Medway Inns) v Hall.
In Macfarlane and another v Glasgow City Council [2001] IRLR 7 EAT, the EAT held that, despite a clause in the worker's contract expressly entitling the worker to substitute a replacement to do the work if unable to attend work, the worker was deemed to be an employee rather than a sub-contractor.
In Baker v Securicor Omega Express Ltd [2000] IRLB 633 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer had been in breach of contact in imposing a change from weekly to monthly pay, and the employee had been constructively dismissed. However, the dismissal was fair for some other substantial reason.
Both the "band or range of reasonable responses" approach to the issue of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a dismissal and the tripartite "Burchell test" remain binding on the Court of Appeal, as well as on employment tribunals and the EAT, holds the Court of Appeal in Post Office v Foley and HSBC Bank plc (formerly Midland Bank plc) v Madden.