header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 10 March 2023

10 March 2023 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8016 / Categories: Features , Employment , Disciplinary&grievance procedures
printer mail-detail
113996
In this month’s employment brief, Ian Smith breaks new ground courtesy of the Court of Appeal & navigates some tricky traps for unwary employees
  • Determining employment status and the relevance of the parties’ categorisation.
  • What is the effective date of termination of a dismissal?
  • The duty on the employer to indemnify the employee.

The three cases considered below fall into two distinct categories. The first and second concern well-established areas of law (employment status and the effective date of termination for statutory purposes) but are of interest for showing the practical application of existing rules, with the second in particular showing a trap for an unwary employee. However, the third case arguably breaks new ground. It concerns one of those areas in employment law—here the implied duty on the employer to indemnify the employee for costs and expenses incurred in the course of employment—where we all think we know what the law is, but if pushed would find it difficult to give precise authority for it.

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll