Legal principle
A misconduct dismissal does not require the employer to prove guilt as a court would. The tribunal asks whether the employer genuinely believed the employee was guilty, had reasonable grounds for that belief and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances.
What the court decided
The appeal established the three-part reasonable-belief approach now commonly called the Burchell test. The tribunal must then assess the dismissal under the statutory fairness test, without substituting its own view of what happened.
The practical test
- 1
Did the employer genuinely believe the employee committed the misconduct?
- 2
Were there reasonable grounds for that belief?
- 3
Had the employer carried out a reasonable investigation before forming the belief?
How tribunals apply it
- Tribunals examine the information available to the decision maker at the time, rather than deciding guilt afresh.
- A flawed or one-sided investigation can undermine the reasonableness of the belief.
- Even where the test is met, the chosen sanction must still fall within the range of reasonable responses.
Connected legislation
WorkDisputes tribunal data
Recent decisions involving related issues
These decisions are selected from topic classifications in our public Employment Tribunal dataset. A matching topic does not mean the decision applied this authority directly.
Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination and Unpaid Wages
Employer: Lynx Support Services Ltd
The claims for unauthorised deductions and unfair dismissal were dismissed as out of time, while the discrimination claims were allowed to proceed.
Legal Issues (3)
- Time limits
- jurisdiction
- just and equitable extension of time limits
Reference: 6023481/2024
Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination and Other
Employer: Medway Council
All claims were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing; the Tribunal found no unlawful treatment or breach of the relevant regulations.
Legal Issues (4)
- Interpretation of the Fixed-term Employees Regulations 2002 (less favourable treatment)
- pregnancy/maternity discrimination under s18 Equality Act 2010
- automatic unfair dismissal under regulation 10 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (duty to offer suitable alternative vacancy during maternity leave)
- whether a lower-paid role must be offered with salary protection
Reference: 6012100/2024
Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination, Breach of Contract and Other
Employer: Monolith UK Ltd
All claims were struck out due to non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claims.
Legal Issues (5)
- Deposit orders under Rule 39
- strike-out for non-payment under Rule 40(4)
- definition of disability under s.6 Equality Act 2010
- burden of proof
- strike-out for non-compliance under Rule 38
Reference: 3303832/2024
Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract
Employer: Tesco Stores Ltd
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed (lost) but the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded (won), resulting in a split outcome.
Legal Issues (2)
- Unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996
- wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) for notice pay
Reference: 2309092/2024
Unfair Dismissal, Unpaid Wages and Breach of Contract
Employer: Bracknell Printroom Ltd
The claimant succeeded on claims of wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal, with the holiday pay claim withdrawn.
Legal Issues (7)
- Whether the claimant was dismissed or resigned
- credibility of witnesses
- amendment application by respondent
- witness order for Mr Harcup
- Polkey argument regarding hypothetical redundancy
- mitigation of loss
- calculation of compensatory award for unfair dismissal
Reference: 6012799/2024
Unfair Dismissal
Employer: Wickes Building Supplies Ltd
The claim was struck out because the claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous service for an unfair dismissal claim, the claim was presented significantly out of time, and the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim or comply with case management directions.
Legal Issues (3)
- Jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim: (1) claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous employment
- (2) claim presented out of time (5 months late) with no explanation
- (3) claim struck out for no reasonable prospect of success and failure to actively pursue (Rule 38)
Reference: 6012922/2025