Ervin Dean v Bahamas Power & Light (Bahamas)
[2024] UKPC 20
Michel Lafresière v New Mauritius Hotels Ltd (Mauritius)
26 October 2023
[2023] UKPC 38
Privy Council
A hotel fired an employee. The employee sued, saying the firing was unfair. A lower court sided with the hotel, but a higher court found the hotel hadn't followed proper procedure and awarded the employee money. The highest court agreed with the higher court.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Lafresière was dismissed by New Mauritius Hotels Ltd. (Hotels) on July 5, 2013, for alleged misconduct.
- •He failed to attend a disciplinary hearing.
- •He claimed wrongful dismissal and severance pay.
- •The Industrial Court dismissed his claim.
- •The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, awarding severance pay.
- •Hotels appealed to the Privy Council.
Legal Principles
An employer cannot terminate an employee's agreement for misconduct unless certain conditions are met (e.g., opportunity to answer charges, notice period).
Employment Rights Act 2008 (ERA 2008), Section 38(2)
The Industrial Court is required to investigate afresh the truth behind allegations of misconduct, not simply accept the employer's disciplinary committee findings.
Smegh (Ile Maurice) Ltée v Persad [2012] UKPC 23
The Industrial Court can only consider the reasons for dismissal given to the employee at the time of dismissal, not subsequent evidence.
Smegh (Ile Maurice) Ltée v Persad [2012] UKPC 23
A party is bound by its pleadings.
Loveridge and Loveridge v Healey [2004] EWCA Civ 173
Judges must give reasons for their decisions; justice must be seen to be done.
English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605
Outcomes
Privy Council dismissed Hotels' appeal.
The Supreme Court correctly found that Hotels' pleaded defence was inadequate to justify dismissal for misconduct, and the Magistrate's judgment failed to adequately address the relevant issues and evidence.
Supreme Court allowed Lafresière's appeal.
The Magistrate's judgment was flawed because it failed to address the inadequacy of Hotels' pleadings and relied solely on Lafresière's non-attendance at the disciplinary hearing without considering his reasons for not attending or the substance of the misconduct allegations.