02 September 2011 / Ian Smith

Issue: 7479 / Categories: Features , Employment

printer

mail-detail

Does it work?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

78396107_4

Ian Smith surveys the latest developments in the employment law pipeline

This year has seen a quite remarkable number of employment related cases being given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Our highest court has made four judgments recently. Home Office v Tariq [2011] UKSC 35, [2011] All ER (D) 108 (Jul) is the least likely to trouble the high street solicitor in Truro, concerning as it did the rarified (but politically contentious) question of the legality of the special advocate procedure for national security cases. The result was not just a full endorsement of that procedure but also a holding that (contrary to the view of the Court of Appeal) there is no overarching requirement to give the claimant and his lawyers enough information to establish the “gist” of the allegations against him. The other three decisions concern the much more everyday issues of “sham” contracts, the unfair dismissal rights of those working abroad and the meaning of “employee” in discrimination law.

Ignoring unrealistic terms

The Supreme Court have given

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

Does it work?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Issue: 7479 / Categories: Features , Employment

78396107_4

Ian Smith surveys the latest developments in the employment law pipeline

This year has seen a quite remarkable number of employment related cases being given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Our highest court has made four judgments recently. Home Office v Tariq [2011] UKSC 35, [2011] All ER (D) 108 (Jul) is the least likely to trouble the high street solicitor in Truro, concerning as it did the rarified (but politically contentious) question of the legality of the special advocate procedure for national security cases. The result was not just a full endorsement of that procedure but also a holding that (contrary to the view of the Court of Appeal) there is no overarching requirement to give the claimant and his lawyers enough information to establish the “gist” of the allegations against him. The other three decisions concern the much more everyday issues of “sham” contracts, the unfair dismissal rights of those working abroad and the meaning of “employee” in discrimination law.

Ignoring unrealistic terms

The Supreme Court

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sponsored by

Click to know more

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS

NLJ this week: Reframing family dispute resolution

As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes

NLJ this week: Employment law updates on restraints, representation & tribunal boundaries

A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike

NLJ this week Civil way: Practical procedure lessons & cautionary tales

From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

NLJ this week: Fraud in the digital age

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

NLJ this week: Right outcome, troubling reasoning?

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct?

back-to-top-scroll