header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins

240108
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act

The court held that Stonewall’s actions were not a sufficient legal cause of Garden Court Chambers’ investigation, reinforcing a cautious approach to causation and ‘novus actus interveniens’.

Smith also examines practical lessons from the Employment Appeal Tribunal on extending notice by agreement, the need to consider all available evidence before dismissal for incapability, and the strict contractual meaning of ‘employer’ in collective redundancy law.

The unifying theme is precision: timing, evidence and statutory context matter. For employers and advisers, these cases underline how easily procedural missteps can tip the balance from lawful management to unfair dismissal. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll