HSBC Bank plc v Madden
Encyclopedia
HSBC Bank plc v Madden and Post Office v Foley [2000] EWCA Civ 330 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal
, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996
.
Tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the investigation showed no evidence of anything. There should have been further investigation.
(not mentioning British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift
) and said that Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd was wrong to suggest that it was a perversity test. He said Parliament should change it, even though he was aware of opinions critical, and quoted Lord Nicholls in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586, 592E on the separation of legislation and interpretation. He noted that Parliament had not acted to change the interpretations on the legislation, and so the reasonable range of responses test remained good.
Unfair dismissal
Unfair dismissal is the term used in UK labour law to describe an employer's action when terminating an employee's employment contrary to the requirements of the Employment Rights Act 1996...
, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Rights Act 1996
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify the existing law on individual rights in UK labour law. Previous statutes, dating from the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, included the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, the...
.
Facts
Mr Madden worked in two different HSBC branches (previously Midland Bank, the Enfield Town and Palmers Green branches) where three debit cards went missing, and he was present on two occasions. There was an internal investigation. Police came but found nothing. HSBC dismissed him anyway, because they could not find anybody else.Tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the investigation showed no evidence of anything. There should have been further investigation.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that the employer was entitled to dismiss him, and the Tribunal should not have substituted its view for the employers’. No reasonable tribunal could have said the investigation was not proper. Mummery LJ said the law is what was stated in Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v JonesIceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.-Facts:...
(not mentioning British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift
British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift
British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.-Facts:...
) and said that Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd was wrong to suggest that it was a perversity test. He said Parliament should change it, even though he was aware of opinions critical, and quoted Lord Nicholls in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586, 592E on the separation of legislation and interpretation. He noted that Parliament had not acted to change the interpretations on the legislation, and so the reasonable range of responses test remained good.