header-logo header-logo

28 April 2011 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Unanswered questions

istock_000009204237small_4

A recent Supreme Court ruling leaves working Brits abroad on tenterhooks, says Charles Pigott

Last month’s Supreme Court decision in Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families [2011] UKSC 14, [2011] All ER (D) 332 (Mar) has dashed hopes for a definitive explanation of how domestic and EU discrimination law combine to cope with cross-border workers.
The extent to which British workers abroad are protected by domestic law was thrown into sharp relief by the repeal of  s 196 Employment Rights Act 1996, which defined the territorial scope of Britain’s employment protection legislation. The Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010), which took effect last October, did not replace the similar provisions on territorial scope in the repealed anti-discrimination legislation.

The gap left by the repeal of s 196 has been plugged to some extent by House of Lords’ decision Lawson v Serco [2006] IRLR 289, [2006] 1 All ER 823, but there is no definitive guidance on how to approach the similar problem we now face in relation to claims under EA 2010.

A

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll