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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll