Consistency and Precedent
by Philip
Following on from Friday’s post about Cunningham which specifically related to employees who have both committed the same offence, the EAT have more recently considered a similar point in Levenes Solicitors v Dalley. This case considered an employee (a solicitor) who had missed court deadlines. She was dismissed. She raised the fact that other solicitors had missed deadlines and not been dismissed, although there were distinguishing features in those cases. The EAT approved the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Paul v East Surrey District Health Authority which said that a tariff approach to industrial misconduct should be avoided. Each case should be considered on its merits in deciding whether the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. Unless two different cases are truly parallel in terms of their facts and the surrounding circumstances, including mitigating or aggravating factors, the consistency argument is unlikely, on its own, to render a dismissal unfair.
Similar Posts: