Author: Kiril Moskovchuk
Published: February 10, 2017
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 5 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
In Adesokan v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited, the Court of Appeal confirmed that gross negligence can amount to gross misconduct. This is hardly surprising, what constituted gross negligence is of more interest.
Mr Adesokan was employed by Sainsbury’s Supermarkets as a regional manager. At the time Sainsbury’s was going through a management consultation and Mr Adesokan became aware of an email by an HR manager of the company circulated in an attempt to undermine the consultation exercise. Mr Adesokan took no action, did not inform his superiors of the email and this amounted to gross negligence and gross misconduct, as the courts confirmed.
The important fact of the case was the managerial role of Mr Adesokan. It is well known that the expectations of managers and their loyalty to the company are higher in comparison to other employees. There is little doubt, however, that if employees even in minor roles keep quiet about something of significant importance, say a mechanic finds out his colleague takes shortcuts which may potentially contravene health and safety and put customers to risk, this keeping quiet may also amount to gross misconduct.