header-logo header-logo

14 October 2022 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7998 / Categories: Features , Employment , Privilege
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 14 October 2022

97423
Can documents retrospectively acquire legal professional privilege? Not without a time machine, says Ian Smith in this month’s brief
  • Early conciliation certificates in multiple cases.
  • Legal professional privilege—no retrospective effect.
  • Reconsideration of judgments and default by a representative.
  • Possible bias by an Employment Appeal Tribunal side member.

Employment case law in the last month has concentrated largely on matters of procedure, rather than substance. The first two cases show that, in fields as intensively ploughed as these, very particular points can still arise for determination at appellate level. They concern applying the early conciliation rules to multiple cases, and whether legal professional privilege can ever apply retrospectively to documents which as initially produced were not privileged. The third and fourth cases concern fairly well-established rules (on reconsideration of judgments and possible bias by a side member) but provide particularly interesting examples, with the odd twist.

Early conciliation certificates

The judgment in Clark and Others v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd and Another [2022] EAT 143 starts by expressing

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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