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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll