Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
The band of reasonable responses test applies to the adequacy of the employer's investigation as well as to the decision to dismiss.
Facts
Mr Hitt, a butcher at a Sainsbury's store, was dismissed for gross misconduct after razor blades and other items belonging to the store were found in his locker. He denied taking them, and suggested that someone else had put them there. The employment tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair, because the employer should have carried out further investigation into his explanation.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal. Mummery LJ said that the band of reasonable responses applies as much to the question whether the investigation into the suspected misconduct was reasonable in all the circumstances as it does to other procedural and substantive aspects of the decision to dismiss. The tribunal had substituted its own view of what investigation was required, instead of asking whether the investigation fell within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. The employer's investigation had been reasonable.
Related cases on unfair dismissal
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380, [2008] ICR 799
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] AC 344
- Post Office v Foley; HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] ICR 1283
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55, [2020] ICR 731
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 702, [2006] ICR 1602
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
