header-logo header-logo

14 February 2025
Issue: 8104 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination , Tribunals
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Scope of blacklisting regulations, re-engagement & hurt feelings

208119
Three cases concerning contributory action and re-engagement, injury to feelings and blacklisted airline pilots come under scrutiny in this week’s NLJ. Ian Smith, barrister, emeritus professor of employment law at the Norwich Law School, UEA, and author of NLJ’s monthly employment law brief, comments that cases on re-engagement, the first in the trio, are ‘relatively rare’. This case ‘shows how carefully an employment tribunal must construe exactly what is expected of it when considering re-engagement’.

Second, Smith highlights the ‘lengthy consideration’ in a recent case of how to approach awards for injury to feelings.

Third, Smith considers the questions raised in a case where an airline created a ‘blacklist’ of pilots who had taken part in industrial action in order to withdraw certain employee benefits. 

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