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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll