Rubenstien & Anor (t/a MacGuffies Dispensing Chemists) v McGloughlin [1995] UKEAT 767_94_1909 (19 September 1995)

Rubenstien & Anor (t/a MacGuffies Dispensing Chemists) v McGloughlin [1995] UKEAT 767_94_1909 (19 September 1995)

The dismissal of Miss McGloughlin was unfair due to procedural deficiencies in the employer's investigation, specifically the failure to show her the relevant vouchers and till rolls and to advise her of the possible outcome of dismissal. The compensation award was generally correct, but only half of the Invalidity Benefit should be deducted. The costs order against Miss McGloughlin was within the tribunal's discretion and not erroneous.

Citation
[1995] UKEAT 767_94_1909
Parties
Respondent and Cross Appellant: Miss McGloughlin; Appellants: Unnamed Partnership Firm of Dispensing Chemists
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Industrial Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on compensation partially allowed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Compensation Assessment, Deductibility of Benefits, Disciplinary Procedure, Costs Orders
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Compensation Assessment Deductibility of Benefits Disciplinary Procedure Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss McGloughlin

Respondent and Cross Appellant

Unnamed Partnership Firm of Dispensing Chemists

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Industrial Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of Miss McGloughlin was unfair under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether the compensation awarded was correctly calculated, particularly regarding the deduction of Invalidity Benefit
  3. 3 Whether the order for costs against Miss McGloughlin was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal of Miss McGloughlin was unfair due to procedural deficiencies in the employer's investigation, specifically the failure to show her the relevant vouchers and till rolls and to advise her of the possible outcome of dismissal. The compensation award was generally correct, but only half of the Invalidity Benefit should be deducted. The costs order against Miss McGloughlin was within the tribunal's discretion and not erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on compensation partially allowed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Finding of unfair dismissal upheld.
  • Compensation award to be adjusted to deduct only half of the Invalidity Benefit received.