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Act 2010 (EA 2010), which took effect last October, did not replace the similar provisions on territorial scope in the repealed anti-discrimination legislation.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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll