Email Us 01473 688 100

Case Law

What is a reasonable investigation?

In this case the Court of Appeal considered how thorough an employer’s investigation should be before it can reach a decision.

Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd [COA] | 2015

The facts

Mr Shrestha was a floating support worker for Genesis Housing Association Limited.

He used his own car to travel to clients at their homes and claimed mileage expenses via an online form, recording the start and finish mileage per journey.

An audit for a three-month period showed unusually high mileage. The mileage claimed was consistently around twice the distance for the same journey using AA route-finder.

A disciplinary procedure commenced and an investigation was carried out. The investigation including a comparison of the mileage claimed by Mr Shrestha for the same journeys the previous year. The claims had risen significantly. The investigation also included a comparison with the RAC website, which produced similar distances to the AA.

During a disciplinary hearing Mr Shrestha gave a number of explanations:

  • difficulty in parking,
  • one-way road systems, and
  • road works causing closures or diversions.

He was questioned about two journeys in particular but not all of them. The disciplinary chair decided this was not necessary as each and every journey was more than AA and RAC suggested it should be and it was not plausible that there was a legitimate explanation for each and every journey.

In relation to the explanations the disciplinary chair concluded that:

  • as Mr Shrestha made the same journeys he would know the best places to park and in some instances the mileage distances claimed meant that he would have parked further away than if he had walked directly from the office.
  • AA route-finder takes into account one-way roads.
  • while road closures would cause increased mileage it would not explain why each and every journey was higher than it should be.

Mr Shrestha was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. He appealed but his appeal was unsuccessful.

Both the ET and EAT considered Genesis had carried out a reasonable investigation and had a reasonable belief that Mr Shrestha had claimed for mileage he had not driven. It was not necessary to:

  • question Mr Shrestha about each journey.
  • recreate each journey as the circumstances on the day could not be replicated.

The decision

The Court of Appeal agreed.

“To say that each line of defence must be investigated unless it is manifestly false or unarguable is to adopt too narrow an approach and to add an unwarranted gloss to the Burchell test. The investigation should be looked at as a whole when assessing the question of reasonableness”.

It also considered that it was not necessary for Genesis to:

  • telephone the local authority to see if any new residents’ parking had been installed
  • ask Mr Shrestha where he parked on each journey
  • check the position on the ground themselves
  • telephone the local authority to establish what road works and road closures there had been.

The Court of Appeal accepted that there had been consideration of what Genesis had done to investigate and what it had not done and why the investigation was reasonable as a whole.

In practice

This case does not change anything but it does reiterate that every aspect of an employee’s defence does not need to be investigated to the enth degree. The important question is whether the investigation and basis of the decision is reasonable.

Genesis should also have put the assumptions it made to Mr Shrestha. For example, do you accept that if there was a road closure on journey X this does not automatically explain the increase in journey Y?

Mr Shrestha may have been better placed if he had done the investigations he says Genesis should have done and presented evidence of ‘new’ residents’ parking and road works etc.

Reasons to Choose
Quantrills Solicitors

Trusted advice

Attention to attention

Speed of response

Pragmatic solutions

Becoming our client is a straightforward process. However, before choosing Quantrills as your employment law solicitors you’ll want to be completely sure we are the right people to help you achieve your objectives. Having looked at our web site, if you like our approach and would like to discuss how we can help you, getting started is easy.

Step 1

Get in Contact

Contact us and tell us a little about your problem and the help you are looking for.

Step 2

We’ll contact you

We’ll follow up with a free no obligation initial telephone call or email to discuss your case.

Step 3

Invitation to become our client

Provided we are happy we can help you, we’ll invite you to become our client.

Step 4

You instruct us

If you agree to our invitation, you simply have to confirm this is writing or by email and confirm your instructions.

Step 5

We’ll start to act for you

Congratulations! You are now a client of Quantrills and we’ll start work on your instructions.

At Quantrills we are flexible in how we work with you and how we progress your case...

In Person

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Get Directions

By Telephone

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

01473 688 100

Or request a call back

By Online Form

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

View Forms

By Email

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Email us

FREE Employer

Subscribe to our email based hrlegalnews to receive details of our Knowledge Bank & HR Updates updates and our forthcoming events.

Client Testimonials

View more