Ian Smith contemplates three recent cases that show lacunae in the law, each posing an interesting conundrum
- Case one considers the law on detriment relating to industrial action incompatible with Convention rights.
- Case two is on the topic of whistleblowing detriment—a different approach to establishing the reason in an organisation.
- Case three relates to termination by the employer, and applying the rule in Hogg v Dover College at common law.
Lacunas or lacunae? Conundrums or conundra? Before your humble author breaks out into song with ‘Tomayto? Tomahto? Let’s call the whole thing off,’ we can perhaps settle for the relatively safe version that the three cases this month all show what have hitherto been lacunae in the law, each of which poses a conundrum. Two cases produce no actual answer, and the third does so but in a way that claimants’ lawyers may want to revisit in future cases. The first two concern the law on detriment (short of dismissal); the third crosses the border into dismissal law, but
7670829bf5ee4855af368e509c9111b6.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=d9eca78_1)
