Laws v London Chronicle [1959] 1 WLR 698 (CA), 700 Lord Evershed MR:
\n\u2018\u2026since a contract of service is but an example of contracts in general, so that the general law of contract will be applicable, it follows that the question must be \u2014 if summary dismissal is claimed to be justifiable \u2014 whether the conduct complained of is such as to show the servant to have disregarded the essential conditions of the contract of service. It is, no doubt, therefore, generally true that wilful disobedience of an order will justify summary dismissal, since wilful disobedience of a lawful and reasonable order shows a disregard \u2014 a complete disregard \u2014 of a condition essential to the contract of service, namely, the condition that the servant must obey the proper orders of the master, and that unless he does so the relationship is, so to speak, struck at fundamentally.\u2019<\/p>\n
Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288 (Visitor, Westminster Abbey), Lord Jauncey ([22]) defined gross misconduct as conduct undermining \u2018the trust and confidence\u2019 inherent in the particular contract of employment.
\n(i) Series of minor breaches
\nPepper v Webb [1969] 2 All ER 216 (CA); Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428 (CA)<\/p>\n
(ii) Secret profit:
\nBoston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansell (1888) 39 CHD 339 (CA)<\/p>\n
(iii) Dishonesty:
\nSinclair v Neighbour [1967] 2 QB 279 (CA)<\/p>\n
(iv) Abusive behaviour
\nIn McCormack v Hamilton Academical FC [2011] CSIH 68
\n5 REMEDIES FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL<\/p>\n
Pitt (9th edn) Ch 8-008.<\/p>\n
(a) Damages<\/p>\n
(i) Humiliation, loss of reputation, distress<\/p>\n
Addis v Gramophone Co [1909] AC 488 (HL); Malik & Mahmud v BCCI [1988] AC 20 (HL); Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL 13, [2003] 1 AC 518; Eastwood v Magnox Electric, MaCabe v Cornwall CC [2005] 1 AC 503 (HL); Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Botham v Ministry of Defence [2012] 2 AC 22 (SC)<\/p>\n
Lady Hale(dissenting):<\/p>\n
\u2018[110] But I should perhaps declare an interest, as the only member of this court to<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Laws v London Chronicle [1959] 1 WLR 698 (CA), 700 Lord Evershed MR: \u2018\u2026since a contract of service is but an example of contracts in general, so that the general law of contract will be applicable, it follows that the Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94735","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94735\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}