Mason v Huddersfield Giants Ltd

Summary dismissal for gross misconduct is justified only where the employee’s conduct amounts to a repudiatory breach of an essential contractual obligation. A single act or omission must involve a deliberate disregard of the contract or otherwise make continuation of the employment relationship impossible. The court must consider the nature of the employment, the employee’s role and the degree of trust required. A contractual obligation to protect an employer’s reputation does not make every objectionable private act a repudiatory breach. The surrounding employment context, including the employer’s own conduct and whether the employee corrected the problem, may be relevant. The court held that failing promptly to remove an offensive image posted without the employee’s involvement did not justify summary dismissal.

The claimant was a professional rugby league player employed by the defendant under a fixed-term contract. His contract permitted summary dismissal for gross misconduct and required conduct on and off the field that preserved the club’s reputation.

An offensive photograph was posted from the claimant’s Twitter account by his girlfriend without his knowledge or encouragement. The claimant became aware of it, responded to a related tweet, and deleted the image within about two days. The defendant dismissed him for leaving the image available and thereby bringing the club into disrepute. An internal appeal was dismissed.

The claimant brought a claim for wrongful dismissal. The central issue was whether his conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the club to terminate summarily.

1. Wrongful dismissal. The claimant’s dismissal was wrongful. The court assessed damages at £167,311 gross, subject to agreement on tax and any discount for accelerated payment. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs and £35,000 on account of costs.
2. The contractual right to summary dismissal depended on a repudiatory breach. The question was whether the claimant’s conduct was sufficiently serious to justify treating the contract as discharged.
3. Following Laws v London Chronicle [1959] All ER 285, a single act can justify dismissal only where it demonstrates a deliberate flouting of an essential contractual term. The principles stated in Wilson v Racher [1974] IRLR 114, Freeth v Burr and Ross T Smythe & Co v Bailey & Sons [1940] 3 All ER [60] likewise emphasised the seriousness required before repudiation is found.
4. The relevant standard varies with the nature of the business, the employee’s position and the degree of trust required, as discussed in Briscoe v Lubrizol [2002] IRLR 607 and Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288. The claimant’s role as a public-facing player and clause 5e were relevant, but they did not make every failure of decorum an essential breach.
5. The claimant had not taken the photograph or posted it. At most, he had omitted to remove promptly an image posted without his involvement while he was recovering from prolonged drinking. Once the issue was drawn to his attention, removal of the image was consistent with damage limitation rather than repudiation.
6. The image was not shown to be inextricably linked to the club. It appeared on the claimant’s personal account, and the evidence did not establish that a reasonable follower would regard it as condoned by the club. The club’s tolerance of related conduct, including its established post-season practices, also weakened its contention that the claimant’s conduct breached an essential contractual condition.
7. The defendant’s desire to remove the claimant from the club was irrelevant to liability. The decisive question was whether the conduct entitled the defendant to terminate the contract.
8. The court also assessed loss of earnings and a lost chance of a testimonial. Opinion evidence was received from witnesses without compliance with Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 35, because counsel consented and the evidence assisted the overriding objective and proportionality.