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

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