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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll