header-logo header-logo

13 June 2025 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8120 / Categories: Features , Employment , Whistleblowing , Tribunals
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 13 June 2025

222357
Ian Smith chews over a bad apple, part-time status, missing appeal documents & whistleblowing detriments
  • Part-time status: must it be the sole reason?
  • A more liberal approach to missing appeal documents.
  • Whistleblowing detriment: vicarious liability for agents.
  • Equal value claims and job evaluation studies: is there a ‘bad apple’ principle?

Two Court of Appeal cases in the last month are of particular importance on very different problems in current employment law—namely the requirement of causation in part-time worker cases, and the right approach to be taken to incomplete documentation in an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in the light of a legislative change in 2023. In the case of the latter, it should finally determine the point but, for reasons explained below, the former may not be the last word.

In addition, two EAT cases are considered here, relating to vicarious liability of agents in whistleblowing law and the position of job evaluation schemes in equal value cases.

Part-time status

Augustine

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll