header-logo header-logo

04 November 2022
Issue: 8001 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 4 November 2022

Discrimination

Bryce v Trident Group Security Ltd [2022] EAT 137, [2022] All ER (D) 137 (Feb)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed, in part, the claimant’s appeal in employment tribunal (ET) proceedings brought against the defendant company. The claimant, who suffered from two disabilities: Asperger’s syndrome and dyslexia, brought claims of disability discrimination, whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal (the claims), arising out of two shifts he had worked for the defendant as a door supervisor. The defendant contended that the claimant had worked for a trial weekend, that he had not been its employee, and that it had not been aware of his disabilities. The claims were dismissed, under r 38(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules (The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237 (the Rules)), because the claimant had failed to comply with an unless order within the specified time. On an application determined on paper, the ET refused to grant the claimant relief from sanctions under r 38(2) of the Rules. The EAT ruled

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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