header-logo header-logo

14 February 2008
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Triggs v GAB Robins (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 17, [2008] All ER (D) 266 (Jan)

The claimant had been constructively dismissed through the employer’s antecedent breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence that had caused her illness and, in turn, reduced her earning capacity.

 

However, it was fallacious to regard those antecedent breaches as constituting the dismissal, since the dismissal was effected by her resignation.

The employee, on a claim for unfair dismissal, is entitled to compensation for whatever loss flowed from that dismissal, but that does not include loss, including future loss, flowing from wrongs already inflicted upon her by the employer’s prior conduct—since those losses, including any future lost income, had not been caused by the dismissal.

 

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll