header-logo header-logo

Termination dates

Sarah Crowther reflects on the human dimension of effective determination dates

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41, the latest instalment in the legal uncertainty which has surrounded determination of the effective date of termination (EDT) in employment cases. It has upheld the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal, but does the final word leave the law sufficiently certain for practitioners, employers and employees?

Section 97(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that the EDT is, in a case of termination of employment without notice, the date on which termination takes effect. This somewhat elusive provision is hugely important in employment cases. 

  • Most obviously it determines the date on which time starts to run for limitation purposes in unfair dismissal claims and discrimination claims where the act complained of is dismissal or where dismissal is the last event in a course of conduct.
  • It is relevant in determining which substantive law applies, such as in recent changes to the law
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