header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 11 December 2020

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll