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

    Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

    Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

    Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

    Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

    DWF—11 appointments

    DWF—11 appointments

    DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

    NEWS
    The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
    Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
    Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
    Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
    A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
    back-to-top-scroll