header-logo header-logo

Working it out

26 October 2012 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7535 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

Ian Smith reviews recent employment law decisions

Employment law problems can be difficult enough to resolve when facts and motivations are clear, but can become even more difficult if mixed reasons or motives are involved. Two recent cases illustrate this, both in areas where the law is obviously predicated on there normally being one factor causing the problem (constructive dismissal and TUPE-related dismissals). Interestingly, and perhaps quite typically in this neck of the woods, the answers given to the question whether it is necessary to look for a single, principal, reason are subtly different because of the different contexts. The third case considered here concerned continuity of employment, an area which in the main has long since been settled by now-old case law but which can still throw up the odd curve ball. The final case concerned a point of discrimination law on which the Equality Act 2010 contains a potentially useful legislative clarification. One other point to notice is that the result of the first and third cases is a score

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