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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll