The master in this case says he was justified in dismissing the plaintiff, because the plaintiff absented himself from his work from June 26 to July 15. That the plaintiff was absent is established. That absence amounted to misconduct on his part sufficient to justify dismissal, unless he had his master’s permission to be away. Clouston v. Carry [1906] A.C. 122, 75 L.J.P.C. 20. .
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.