header-logo header-logo

Ripe for a pasting?

istock_000013260607medium_4

Could time be up for the Taplin test, asks Mark Benney

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), s 128, an employee claiming to have been unfairly dismissed may apply to the employment tribunal for interim relief if the reason or the principal reason for his dismissal was:
 

  • activities relating to health and safety;
  • performance of functions relating to trusteeship of occupational pension schemes;
  • performance of functions as an employee representative or candidate; or
  • the making of a protected disclosure.

If successful, such an application may result in the reinstatement or re-engagement of the employee, or alternatively the payment of his salary pending the full hearing of his claim for unfair dismissal. As recent cases such as Watkinson (ET 1702168/2008 and 1702079/2009) have demonstrated, there is ample incentive for unfair dismissal claimants to allege that the reason for dismissal was, for example, the fact that protected disclosures had been made, because the statutory cap on compensation does not apply in such cases.

Under ERA 1996, s 129,

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll