Does it work?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.

02 September 2011 / Ian Smith

Issue: 7479 / Categories: Features , Employment

printer

mail-detail

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 2025. 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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Payne Hicks Beach—Craig Parrett

Payne Hicks Beach—Craig Parrett

Insolvency and restructuring practice welcomes new partner

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

North East firm welcomes employment specialist

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Partner joins commercial and technology practice

NEWS

NLJ this week: When high rates fall flat

In this week's NLJ, Sophie Houghton of LexisPSL distils the key lesson from recent costs cases: if you want to exceed guideline hourly rates (GHR), you must prove why

NLJ this week: Building digital bridges to justice

With chronic underfunding and rising demand leaving thousands without legal help, technology could transform access to justice—if handled wisely, writes Professor Sue Prince of the University of Exeter in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Form N510—not just a box to tick

NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way

NLJ this week: Delegation or dereliction?

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007

NLJ this week: FCA faces its toughest test yet

The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness

back-to-top-scroll