header-logo header-logo

22 November 2019 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7865 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Iniquity, privilege & an unwise conversation in the pub

11896
Charles Pigott reflects on Curless & the complexities of addressing discrimination claims in the context of a wider redundancy programme
  • The Court of Appeal has ruled that Shell could claim privilege in an e-mail giving legal advice about dealing with a discrimination claim in the context of a wider redundancy programme
  • It took a different view from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which ruled last year that privilege could not be claimed, because the advice had been given ‘for the purpose of facilitating an iniquity’.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Curless v Shell International Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1710, [2019] All ER (D) 137 (Oct) touches on a subject that is commonly encountered by employment lawyers when advising on implementing a redundancy programme.

What happened?

In this case Michael Curless had been employed as a senior legal counsel by Shell. He has Type 2 diabetes and obstructive sleep apnoea. There had been long-standing concerns about his performance. He had made complaints about disability discrimination and had

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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll