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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll