Abstract

The case note considers the extent to which employers may regulate the appearance of employees and observes, as affirmed in the case, that appearance regulation is a matter of mutual interest; an employee’s freedom of expression exercised within the limits of the law may protect the employee from allegations of insubordination; context is of importance in determining the reasonableness of such regulation; and an inherent requirement of the job is a defence for the employer, but should be interpreted in a narrow manner. The article concludes by emphasising the potential for appearance regulation to constitute an abuse of power: hence such regulation must be legitimate and reasonable.