header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Employment law brief: 10 June 2020

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
10 June 2020 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7890 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
22337
Ian Smith takes a gander at short, precise, but nonetheless important aspects of both common & statutory law
  • Wrongful or unfair?
  • Status of the proverbial last straw.
  • Re-engagement not an ‘order’.
  • TUPE-related changes void, even if to the employee’s advantage.
  • When does a new employee start work?

Unlike some recent Briefs which have covered cases concerning broad issues of principle or policy (eg the recent Supreme Court cases reassessing vicarious liability), this month’s Brief looks at five cases concerning short, precise but important aspects of both common law and statutory law in the employment context, namely the difference between wrongful and unfair dismissal, ‘last straw’ constructive dismissal, the limitations of an ‘order’ for re-engagement, TUPE-related changes to employment contracts and the start date for new employment.

Wrongful or unfair?

East Coast Main Line Co Ltd v Cameron UKEAT/0212/19 is a good case example of the difference between wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal and the importance of keeping them separate for most purposes. The claimant was summarily

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll