Ian Smith takes a leap into the new year reporting on two important statements of principle & an adventurous challenge
- How to identify ‘the employer’ in a complex case.
- Another ruling against wider rights for agency workers.
- Does the law on interim relief need to be changed?
Three significant decisions of the EAT (one by the President and two by Mr Justice Cavanagh) were reported in the dying days of last year. The first two contain important statements of principle on fundamental questions which have hitherto had surprisingly little by way of authoritative treatment by the courts, namely (1) how to tell who is ‘the employer’ in a case of complex dealings and (2) how extensive (or otherwise) are the rights given to agency workers by statute? The third case is not a statement of principle, but rather an adventurous challenge to the legality of the absence of any remedy of interim relief in discrimination law; the case is to go before the Court of Appeal to consider
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
