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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll