Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Legal Q&AEmployment lawRecruitment & retention

Weekly dilemma: lying on a CV

by Personnel Today 11 May 2010
by Personnel Today 11 May 2010

Q We recently recruited a senior manager who, we have since discovered, exaggerated and even lied outright on her CV. Can we bring legal proceedings against her?

A Perhaps the first consideration should be whether you still want the employee to work for you. If not, you will almost certainly have grounds to terminate her employment – but remember to follow an appropriate procedure to minimise her chances of successfully claiming unfair dismissal.

Dismissal aside, legal proceedings against an employee in these circumstances are very rare but, in theory at least, you would be able to bring a claim for misrepresentation. But you should bear in mind that it is often not sensible to sue an individual – if you win, they may not have the money to pay your damages and costs at the end of the process.

To successfully sue for misrepresentation, the court would need to be satisfied that the employee did not have an honest belief in the information in question, and that the information was at least part of the reason you employed her.

If you were successful, the court would award damages with the aim of putting you in the position you would have been in if the contract had not been entered into. This is one of the reasons why claims like this are so unusual. Although you could argue that had you not entered into her employment contract you would not have paid her salary, there is a good chance that the court would accept the counter argument that you would have recruited an alternative candidate at a similar pay grade instead.

You would therefore only be well advised to sue the employee if you knew that she could pay your damages and costs and if you could identify a specific and substantial loss over and above salary that you wanted to recover. The recent case of Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird is an example of such a situation.

In Laird, the employee failed to disclose a history of depression and stress-related illness on a pre-employment medical questionnaire. Relations between the employer and the employee broke down over time and she began to suffer from poor mental health and eventually took ill health retirement.

The losses the employer attempted to recover were not the employee’s salary, but the cost of dealing with numerous internal disputes involving the employee and her ill health retirement. But the claim ultimately failed, because the questionnaire had been poorly drafted and the court decided that the employee’s non-disclosure did not actually amount to misrepresentation.

David Brown, associate, Simpson Millar

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
World Cup staff absence management preparations are not under way
next post
Top job: Frank Douglas, group HR director, Transport for London

You may also like

Number of working people with disability up 1.3...

17 May 2022

Wages fall 1.2% behind inflation as cost of...

17 May 2022

Lack of flexibility pushes half of women to...

16 May 2022

easyJet joins battle for cabin crew with £1,000...

16 May 2022

MP demands timeline on carer’s leave legislation

13 May 2022

How to build a compelling talent attraction strategy...

12 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: absence of employment bill leaves organisations...

10 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: Exclusivity contracts for low-paid workers to...

9 May 2022

MP seeks legal protections for employees undergoing fertility...

9 May 2022

Only 5% of job ad wording fully gender...

9 May 2022
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+