Court Opinion
Written by dreckly on 09/Jun/2026 03:33:00 PM UTC
Good Morning Both,
I'm pleased to inform you that the Supreme Court has issued the following interpretation:
"The Supreme Court has considered all the factors relevant to this interpretation request, we have concluded that an unauthorised leave of absence does not constitute severe misconduct under Part 4, Section 2 (1) (1) of the Code of Conduct and therefore in of itself, does not constitute grounds for termination of the individual's employment.
However, when we consider the reasons for a member to take a leave of absence (be it authorised or not) there is the consideration that they are likely to breach the activity laws under Part 4, Section 2 of the Employment Act, which the court finds to be an unclassified offence and therefore it is traditionally for the court to decide on the appropriate punishment, with consideration given to common law, if present.
However, the court has also considered additional safeguards and would consider it appropriate for a warning to be issued when the employee has reached 5 days inactivity on client or website (and thus breaching Part 4, Section 2 of the Employment Act), giving them 24 hours from the timing of the notice to respond, or they are liable for their employment to be terminated."
