header-logo header-logo

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

Working it out

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

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
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’
back-to-top-scroll