header-logo header-logo

10 December 2020 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7914 / Categories: Features , Employment , Tribunals , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 11 December 2020

34122
Ian Smith signs off for the year with a salute to Shakespeare
  • Considerations for applications to amend employment tribunal claims.
  • Guidance on when to order special disclosure in an employment tribunal.
  • ‘Cost-plus’ justification in discrimination law.

It has been said that the works of Shakespeare are less a collection of plays than a long series of quotations. The same might be said of Vaughan v Modality Partnership (2020) UKEAT/0147/20, the first reported decision of the new Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judge (and, we are delighted to say, our new Harvey editor), Judge James Tayler, which subjects the law on amending employment tribunal (ET) claims to fresh scrutiny and contains several highly quotable passages for any lawyers or representatives having to deal with this matter.

The judgment starts with this salutary reminder about using well established principles of law:

‘This appeal concerns the correct approach to adopt when considering an application to amend. It might be said that everything that needs to be said about

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll