header-logo header-logo

16 December 2022 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8007 / Categories: Features , Employment , Tribunals , TUPE , Disciplinary&grievance procedures
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 16 December 2022

104840
Before he shoots off for Christmas duties, Ian Smith unwraps some of the latest gifts from the Employment Appeal Tribunal & Court of Appeal
  • Termination by the employer; the effect of a successful appeal.
  • The duty to mitigate loss in a whistleblowing case.
  • TUPE and service provision changes; the activities must remain fundamentally the same.
  • Collective agreements are not subject to the equitable remedy of rectification.

Of the four cases considered in this brief (three in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and one in the Court of Appeal), the first two concern interesting sub-issues in areas of otherwise quite settled law; the third is a useful factual example of one of the key requirements for there to be a ‘service provision change’ in TUPE law; and in the fourth, the Court of Appeal has rectified an ‘adventurous’ first-instance decision on (you’ve guessed it) rectification.

The effect of successful appeals

The position of an employee faced with dismissal who uses an internal appeal system raises

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll