header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 5 March 2020

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll