header-logo header-logo

07 March 2019 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7831 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 7 March 2019

In this month’s employment brief, Ian Smith examines the long shadow cast by the infamous ‘gay cake case’ & takes a look at some exceptions to the unfair dismissal rule

  • Automatic unfair dismissal: a gap in the protection?
  • Automatic unfairness again: this time on a TUPE transfer.
  • Freedom to hold a belief—but whose belief?
  • What is ‘an email’?
  • Two cases this month have concerned the exception rather than the rule in unfair dismissal law: namely where the dismissal is automatically unfair because it comes into an especially protected category. Not only are these categories important in themselves, they are also (like patriotism for the scoundrel) the last refuge of the claimant without two years’ qualifying employment. The third case considered here shows clearly the effect of the Supreme Court decision in the Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 49, [2018] All ER (D) 43 (Oct) case. The fourth case raises the sort of question that lawyers

    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

    NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

    NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

    Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

    Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

    Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

    Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

    Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

    Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

    Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

    NEWS
    Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
    The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
    Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
    Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
    The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
    back-to-top-scroll