Gross Misconduct meaning

Andrew Hewston v OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills) [2025] EWCA Civ 250 What are the practical implications of this judgment? In this ruling, the Court of Appeal, with Lord Justice Underhill delivering the lead judgment, confirmed the EAT’s finding that the claimant’s dismissal was unfair, where he neither understood nor could reasonably have been expected to understand that a single episode of conduct could lead to dismissal. The decision also restates the key principles employers should apply when dismissing for gross misconduct. Notably, the Court agreed with the EAT that, where the conduct on its own does not justify dismissal, it is not reasonable for an employer to elevate its gravity solely because the employee failed to demonstrate adequate contrition or insight. Underhill LJ made a comparable observation in the recent case of Higgs v Farmor at [165]–[166], highlighting that conduct reflecting a deeply held belief may mean an employee is reluctant to accept it was wrong, or seriously wrong. Employers...

In this issue: Criminal liability Criminal procedure and evidence Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Local authority prosecutions Corporate Crime in Scotland International LexTalk® Corporate Crime: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Useful information Criminal liability IOPC publishes Hillsborough investigation findings on police conduct and misconduct The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has released a report capturing its inquiries into police conduct linked to the Hillsborough disaster and what followed. Running 161 individual investigations into 352 complaints, the IOPC concluded that the South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable and nine additional officers would have faced gross misconduct hearings had they still been serving. It further found that two senior West Midlands Police officers...

In this issue: Recruitment Protected characteristics Data protection and employee information Business reorganisation Confidentiality, duties and restrictions: enforcement Immigration IRLR Highlights—March 2025 Dates for your diary Trackers Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Recruitment Employee fairly dismissed for failing to disclose previous gross misconduct dismissal on application form employment history In Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force) [2025] EAT 15, the claimant applied for a position with the respondent. The application’s free-text ‘Employment History’ field listed only years, masking a three-month gap that followed his gross misconduct dismissal from another Home Office role. He did not disclose either the gap or the dismissal at interview. After he began work, the respondent discovered the prior dismissal and initiated a disciplinary investigation. It concluded he had been deliberately misleading by omitting pertinent details from his application. He was dismissed for gross misconduct. The employment tribunal dismissed...

Employment This playbook sets out guidance for preparing and negotiating an executive service agreement for a director or senior hire. It presents a preferred stance and an alternative fall-back for the clauses most often debated, but it will not necessarily capture every point that might surface in a specific negotiation. The template is suitable for lawyers acting for the employer and for in-house counsel. Users should adapt it to reflect the client’s circumstances and to safeguard the client’s position. The risk level indicated may differ according to the client. For templates, see: Precedent: Executive service agreement; Precedent: Executive service agreement (short form); Precedent: Executive service agreement (Scotland); Executive service agreement (short form, Scotland). See also Settlement (employment)—overview and: Precedents: Letter—advice to employer client regarding draft executive service agreement; and Letter—advice to employee client regarding executive service agreement Practice Notes: Issues to consider when advising a director on a service agreement; and Duties of employees and company directors...

Conduct Under section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and Schedule 5, Part 5 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) — specifically CPA 2004, Sch 5 Pt 5, para 21(2)(g) — conduct is a distinct consideration where, in the court’s opinion, it would be inequitable to disregard it. The legislation therefore expressly invites the court to assess the parties’ behaviour when determining a financial award. This, in turn, can encourage parties to set out extensive allegations of each other’s poor behaviour; Form E even asks for such details, but with the caveat that misconduct will only be taken into account ‘in very exceptional circumstances’. Clients are often keen to pursue conduct-based arguments. However, within financial order proceedings, conduct is rarely of real relevance, and firm, early advice should be provided accordingly. Clients should be informed of the court’s approach to conduct and why, in most cases, it is not usually factored into the decision...

This Practice Note examines what is meant by gross misconduct in the context of wrongful dismissal ie summary dismissal or termination on short notice or no notice This note explores gross misconduct within wrongful dismissal, meaning summary dismissal or ending employment on short or no notice. It considers fundamental breach of contract, conduct at odds with the duty of fidelity and/or the duty of trust and confidence, serious misconduct, gross negligence, and disciplinary rules. It also addresses misconduct for unfair dismissal purposes. Gross misconduct is behaviour by an employee so serious that the employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship. It must amount to a fundamental breach—one that strikes at the core of the contract. The conduct must be both gross (that is, extreme or out of the ordinary) and culpable (blameworthy). It is behaviour incompatible with the employee’s obligations of fidelity, trust and confidence, for example dishonesty or acts intended to harm the employer’s interests. A pattern of incidents may, when viewed together, be...

1 Should the [ Board OR Remuneration Committee ], at any point in time within [ three ] years from the date a bonus has been paid to you, in its sole and absolute discretion conclude that any event set out in sub-clauses 1.1 to 1.4 of this clause has arisen, it may demand that you repay some or all of the pertinent bonus payment (irrespective of whether you remain in employment with the Company or any other Group Company), with such repayment to be carried out strictly in line with clause 2: 1.1 [ the Company or any other Group Company being required to materially restate all or part of its financial statements OR your gross negligence, fraud, dishonesty or other misconduct having caused or helped to cause the Company or any other Group Company to materially restate all or part of its financial statements ] ; 1.2 your gross negligence, fraud, dishonesty or other misconduct, or your commission of any further act or...

These training materials offer a concise primer on the principal legal points to weigh up when preparing and bargaining over typical provisions used to achieve compromise in commercial contracts in practice. The topics include: good faith (definition, stance of the English courts, express duties, implied duties, relational contracts, agreements to negotiate in good faith); endeavours obligations (reasonable endeavours, all reasonable endeavours, best endeavours, how they differ, their meaning, the balancing exercise or test); wilful misconduct (definition, alternative labels and terminology such as deliberate default, gross negligence, deliberate act, and wilful neglect or default); and material breach (definition, how it differs from repudiatory breach, and persistent breaches). Across all subjects, the materials provide practical top tips for commercial lawyers who draft and negotiate clauses using this terminology in their day-to-day work. They are intended for commercial lawyers advising on business-to-business agreements, and do not address business-to-consumer contracts at all...

1 Purpose and scope of the procedure 1.1 The following code of conduct and disciplinary process are intended to secure fair and consistent treatment for every employee of the Company, to support the safe and efficient performance of work, and to nurture constructive relationships among colleagues and between staff and their managers. 1.2 You must acquaint yourself with, understand, and comply with the code of conduct and disciplinary procedure, which applies to all employees at all times. 1.3 The code of conduct constitutes part of your employment contract with the Company. The disciplinary procedure is not contractual and does not form part of your contract of employment. It may be altered at any time, and the Company may, where appropriate, adopt an alternative process where the circumstances of a particular matter require. 2 Code of conduct 2.1 The code of conduct sets out the principal behavioural and performance standards required by the Company. You are obliged to meet these standards fully and to act reasonably...

Unfair dismissal—conduct and procedure Where an employee pursues an unfair dismissal claim, the onus lies with the employer to demonstrate a fair reason for ending employment. Conduct is one of the potentially fair grounds, but a fair process must also be observed. Ultimately, it needs to be established that dismissal is an appropriate and fair sanction. The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures imposes duties on both employers and employees to follow its provisions, with possible sanctions for non-compliance. It describes the standard of reasonable behaviour expected in most situations. For further guidance, see the following Practice Notes: Dismissing fairly for conduct reasons Reason for dismissal—conduct Reason for dismissal—general, in particular section: Potentially fair reasons Acas disciplinary and grievance code—procedural requirements Under the Acas Code of Practice, certain actions—labelled gross misconduct—are so serious in themselves, or carry such serious consequences, that they may justify dismissal without notice even for a first offence. However, a fair disciplinary...

From 28 September 2020, where a self-isolating worker is scheduled to work or carry out any other employment-related tasks during the isolation window (aside from working at home or the location where they are isolating), they must inform their employer that they are obliged to self-isolate, providing the start and end dates of that period. This notice must be supplied as soon as reasonably practicable and, in any case, before the worker is next due to commence work within the isolation period...

You may wish to consider separately: the implied term the fairness of a dismissal which prejudices Permanent Health Insurance (PHI) rights, under the statutory law on unfair dismissal Where PHI benefits depend on employment continuing, the High Court has implied a term preventing dismissal during incapacity, save for summary dismissal (gross misconduct) or another compelling ground (eg redundancy). In Briscoe v Lubrizol, the Court of Appeal signalled a broader carve-out, permitting dismissal for ‘reasonable and proper cause’. Even so, such a term is not always to be implied. In Lloyd v BCQ (EAT) no implication was made where: a later written contract omitted any reference to the PHI scheme and contained an entire agreement clause there was, overall, no contractual entitlement to scheme benefits the contract expressly permitted dismissal for prolonged illness For more detail, including reconciling Briscoe and Lloyd, see Practice Notes: Dealing with long-term or chronic sickness—Consider any Permanent Health Insurance (PHI)...