header-logo header-logo

04 September 2009 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7383 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment matters

Ian Smith provides an update from
the courts

Of the four cases considered in this column this month, three concern general principles of employment law—the right (or otherwise) to legal representation at a disciplinary hearing, the “effective date of termination” in a case of dismissal without notice and how equal pay claims and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) fit together. As will be seen, these topics are united by the fact that they have exercised the minds (and sometimes the patience) of employment lawyers over many years. Indeed, it is argued that the real problem behind the third one (equal pay and TUPE) is that both of these areas are, in employment law terms, so old, but historically were never designed to fit together. By contrast, the fourth case concerned a pure question of statutory interpretation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, revolving around a word that sounds perfectly normal and innocuous but had proved to be neither in the hitherto-inconsistent case law.

A right to legal representation ?

Earlier this

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll