header-logo header-logo

27 June 2013 / Julian Yew , Anna Henry
Issue: 7566 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

An alternative exit tool

Julian Yew & Anna Henry examine the pros & cons of the forthcoming “protected conversations” law

Contracts of employment may be lawfully terminated provided that employers go through the correct procedures under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and follow any contractual procedures. Procedures can, however, be laborious, stressful and time-consuming for employers. Negotiated departures are thus frequently carried out by employers purportedly on a “without prejudice” basis.

The government recently announced that it plans to introduce “protected conversations” so that “a boss and an employee feel able to sit down together and have a frank conversation at either’s request”. Such “pre-termination negotiations” will not be admissible in an unfair dismissal claim unless there has been “improper behaviour” by the employer.

Without prejudice conversations

The “without prejudice” rule, which is a form of privilege, is that written or oral communications, which are made for the purpose of a genuine attempt to compromise a dispute between the parties, may generally not be admitted in evidence. In Cutts v Head [1984]

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
back-to-top-scroll