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

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
back-to-top-scroll