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

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll