Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
In Bank of Africa UK v Hassani, the EAT confirmed that a change of employer during secondment will be rare without clear novation—vague notions of ‘rescinding control’ will not suffice. In MN v NHS Foundation Trust L, the Court of Appeal held that disciplinary safeguards in MHPS were contractually incorporated, given their ‘mandatory’ wording and grave career consequences.
Meanwhile, Chand v EE reiterates that tribunals must identify what actually motivated dismissal, not what could have justified it. And in Milrine v DHL, an appeal process so flawed the EAT had ‘never seen an appeal quite like this’ rendered the dismissal unfair.
RELATED ARTICLES
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
