header-logo header-logo

25 November 2011 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7491 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Play it again, Sam

piano_4

Ian Smith explores some recent cases that reaffirm existing employment law

The last month has felt like something of a hiatus in employment law. We are still awaiting certain cases pending before the Supreme Court and European Court of Justice, and after a rush of activity from the government before the summer recess, concerning possible amendments to legislation, that area seems to have gone to sleep temporarily. Similarly, the case law reported has not contained any major pronouncements or bombshells. On the other hand, there has been some interesting stuff reaffirming existing law but with some twists or refinements. It is into that category that the four cases chosen for this column fall.

New methods or new job?

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) under Slade J in Smith v London Metropolitan University [2011] IRLR 884, [2011] All ER (D) 19 (Sep) establishes a potentially important point on the employee’s implied duty of reasonable adaptation and reiterates a point on whistleblowing already made by the same judge in

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