header-logo header-logo

14 June 2007 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7277 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 15 June 2007

The dismissal conundrum >>
The rules on “without prejudice” privilege >>
Maternity absentee returning to the “same job” >>

Three very different areas of employment law are worthy of mention this month. The first is a very old conundrum on the meaning of “dismissal”. The second is the application in employment law of the rules on “without prejudice” privilege. The third is the meaning of a maternity absentee returning to the “same job”, on which curiously we have never before had a decision at appellate level.

When is it a dismissal?

The question of how an employment terminated—dismissal or resignation?—was subject to much discussion in early case law during the Cretaceous Period of employment law. Did he jump or was he pushed? On a mundane level, this can arise where all that happens is that the parties swear mightily at each other and part; in such a case, the test, in legal language, is who was the f-offor and who was the f-offee. There is, however, an inherently more difficult version

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll