header-logo header-logo

07 February 2019 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7827 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 7 February 2019

Ian Smith serves up a turbo-charged, non-biased update on recent case law & substantive procedural matters

  • ASDA Stores (1): the comparison point. ASDA Stores (2): the procedural point.
  • Extension of time for appealing to the EAT: computer problems and ill health.
  • Apparent bias at ET hearing.
  • Much of the case development in recent employment law has concerned mainstream substantive matters such as employment/worker status and contractual and statutory rights on dismissal. However, for a change the four cases (three Court of Appeal and one Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)) considered this month show that other substantive areas and procedural matters must not be overlooked, even if they may seem at times to have gone to sleep. The first two concern the same litigation—namely the ‘ASDA cases’ on equal pay—the third is a Court of Appeal case on extension of time for appealing to the EAT, and the fourth is an EAT case on when robust exchanges between Bench and Bar do and (more importantly) do not constitute apparent

    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

    Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

    Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

    Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

    DWF—five appointments

    DWF—five appointments

    DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

    Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

    Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

    Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

    NEWS
    The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
    Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
    The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
    A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

    Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

    back-to-top-scroll