header-logo header-logo

28 October 2015 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7674 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 28 October 2015

web_smitht

Ian Smith reviews some interesting contrasts in recent employment case law

 

Rather unusually, the case law in the last month contained three sets of, in effect, paired cases which provide interesting contrasts. The first pair concerned the concept of the “service provision change” (SPC) in TUPE law, the second the perpetual problem of where to draw the line on the territorial jurisdiction of British employment tribunals and the third the difficult area of discrimination arising from disability.

Service provision changes—the problem

Much of the case law on whether an individual was or was not “assigned” to the organised grouping of employees that is subject to an SPC has concerned current, active employees, and the question whether they were sufficiently connected to the (part of) undertaking being transferred. However, two contemporaneous cases recently concerned a wholly different problem, namely where there is clearly a SPC and the organised grouping is equally clear, but the twist is that the employee in question was not actually working on the task in question immediately before

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll