Neary and Neary v Dean of Westminster: 9 Jun 1999

Financial wrong-doing short of dishonesty can be a basis for summary dismissal. Gross misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal must in the particular circumstances so undermine the trust and confidence of an employer that he should no longer be required to continue the employment. The identity of the employer and employee were relevant factors.
Lord Jauncey said: ‘The character of the institutional employer, the role played by the employee in that institution and the degree of trust required of the employee vis-a-vis the employer must all be considered in determining the extent of the duty and the seriousness of any breach thereof.’ and ‘conduct amounting to gross misconduct justifying dismissal must so undermine the trust and confidence which is inherent in the particular contract of employment that the master should no longer be required to retain the servant in his employment.’ and ‘The question of whether there has been a repudiatory breach of that duty justifying instant dismissal must now be addressed. Whether misconduct justifies summary dismissal of a servant is a question of fact.’


Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle


Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] IRLR 288


England and Wales


CitedClouston and Company Limited v Corry PC 1-Dec-1905
(New Zealand) . .
CitedLaws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd CA 1959
Lord Evershed MR discussed the justification for summary dismissal: ‘It follows that the question must be whether the conduct complained of is such as to show the servant to have disregarded the essential conditions of the contract of service. One . .
CitedSinclair v Neighbour CA 1967
The manager of a betting shop took andpound;15 from the shop till for the purpose of gambling; he knew that he would not have been given permission to do so if he had asked. He put an IOU in the till and repaid the money next day. He was summarily . .
CitedLewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd CA 1985
The court considered the circumstances under which an employee might resign and successfully claim constructive dismissal.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘This breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of action on . .

Cited by:

CitedC Lo Sterzo v London Borough of Lewisham EAT 2-Oct-2000
The applicant had been dismissed for gross misconduct in his supervision of building works carried out for his respondent employer. He appealed dismissal of his claim on the basis that no tribunal could properly find the employers decision to be . .
CitedFulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Tigana CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant had acted as manager of the claimant. The claimant appealed dismissal of its claim for breach of contract and of fiduciary duty, and his claim for payment of sums due under share options granted to him.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
CitedMars UK Ltd T/A Masterfoods v K Parker EAT 24-Oct-2005
EAT Whether an Employment Tribunal took a permissible approach to determining that a dismissal was unfair, in circumstances in which it did not clearly set out the terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act . .
CitedCoulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .
CitedMason v Huddersfield Giants Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2013
The claimant rugby league player complained of his dismissal under a clause allowing such for behaviour which might bring the club into disrepute. He had engaged in a celebratory evening out involving a naked run. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.84238