header-logo header-logo

07 November 2019 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7863 / Categories: Features , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 7 November 2019

In this month’s employment brief, Ian Smith raises a glass to legal privilege in the face of pub gossip, & the Pandora’s Box opened by the recent whistle-blowing judgment
  • Judges can be ‘workers’.
  • No liability for third-party harassment.
  • Reversing the burden of proof in discrimination cases.

Dangerous places, London pubs. We might have benefited from Christopher Marlowe’s views on this, if he had not been murdered in one. What brought this to mind this month was a Court of Appeal decision (Curless v Shell International Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1710, [2019] All ER (D) 137 (Oct)) the facts of which occurred in that den of lawyers and other assorted ne’er-do-wells, the Old Bank of England pub near the law courts. The claimant in a case suddenly realised that a gaggle of lawyers just behind him were in fact talking about his case, from the other side. He was being faced with being ‘managed out’ by redundancy, but he thought it was for other, more dubious reasons.

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

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
back-to-top-scroll