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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll