header-logo header-logo

13 March 2026
Issue: 8153 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Tribunals , Disciplinary&grievance procedures
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law

244394
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.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Firm enhances advisory capability with strategic risk specialist hire

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Insurance and reinsurance specialist joins policyholder disputes practice as partner

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll