header-logo header-logo

27 November 2014 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7632 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 27 November 2014

smith_0_0

Ian Smith reflects upon the impact of recent employment law developments

The first two cases considered this month merit fairly extensive consideration because of their importance in their areas. The first in effect uses a recent Supreme Court case on the common law of dismissal to reopen a hitherto little used avenue for an employer faced with an important employee purporting to leave (to join a competitor) in flagrant breach of a notice requirement, without the expense of paying him or her out under a garden leave clause. The second revisits the question of how to operate the important Polkey reduction in unfair dismissal cases, where the tribunal has to assess future likelihoods. The third case is nothing like so important in principle, but is nevertheless of interest in showing how large a costs order can be in what is always said to be essentially a costs-free jurisdiction.

Stopping unlawful competition

When the Supreme Court decided in Societe Generale v Geys [2013] IRLR 122, [2012] All ER (D) 196 (Dec)

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll