header-logo header-logo

11 October 2018 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7812 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 11 October 2018

In this month’s brief, Ian Smith shines the spotlight on some age-old ambiguities

  • Construing the contract in a ‘Wages Act’ claim.
  • Appeals where the tribunal papers are not actually received.
  • ‘Giving notice’ can be ambiguous.

In the last month, the Court of Appeal has handed down two judgments settling points of controversy in areas of employment law:

  • as to substance, whether a tribunal in determining a ‘Wages Act’ claim for unlawful deductions can if necessary construe/interpret the claimant’s contract of employment in order to determine what was ‘properly payable’; and
  • as to procedure, how to deal with a case where the losing party in a tribunal fails to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) within the tight deadline of 42 days because he or she has not actually received the relevant documentation from the tribunal.

On a common-sense basis, it may be that the answers to these questions should be obvious but, as we shall see, the issues are not so simple, to the extent that in the second, although

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll