header-logo header-logo

05 March 2020 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7877 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 5 March 2020

16955
Ian Smith tackles another fine mess or two, including Laurel & Hardy in the Employment Appeal Tribunal
  • The policy against multiple contemporaneous employers outside tort cases.
  • Illegal conduct later rectified—the effect?
  • Fair dismissal on suspicion, not reasonable belief

Can an employee have more than one employer for one employment? What happens if an illegal contract is later performed legally? When can an employer dismiss on mere suspicion? These questions are raised in this Brief, but there is a fourth and even more fundamental question—why have James Corden and Laurel and Hardy been in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)? Read on, gentle reader, read on.

In Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Ltd UKEAT/0286/19 the claimant was an optician working through the well-known high street optician. When his work was terminated, he brought ET proceedings inter alia for unfair dismissal, but his claim went wrong procedurally, in such a way that he was ultimately forced back on to an argument that he had been employed by two companies contemporaneously, which

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll