Blog
Illegality as a defence in the Employment Tribunals: The case of Okedina v Chikale
In the recent decision in Okedina v Chikale UKEAT/0152/17/RN the EAT (HHJ Eady QC) considered the question of when a Claimant’s contract of employment would be said to be illegal by virtue of the operation of immigration law. The case contains a useful rehearsal of the relevant legal principles (para 35 – 41 of the […]
TUPE Review 2017
Introduction This is a brief round-up of reported TUPE cases from 2017 – perhaps not the most exciting year for TUPE enthusiasts. From my point of view, the most interesting cases are Born London Ltd v Spire (from March, dealing with provision of information); Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (also March, dealing […]
Whistleblowing and unfair dismissal – whose state of mind is relevant?
When considering whether a dismissal is an automatically unfair “whistleblowing” dismissal, is it permissible to consider the mental processes of anyone other than the decision-taker? In particular, what if the decision-taker was “manipulated” by another of the Respondent’s employees? “No (in the circumstances)”, said the Court of Appeal in Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2017] […]
Various Claimants v Wm Morrisons Supermarket Plc
When is an employer liable for the criminal actions of a rogue employee in disclosing personal information of co-employees on the web? That was the question raised in Various Claimants v Wm Morrisons Supermarket Plc [2017] EWHC 3133 (QB) (click here for the judgment). Facts In early 2014 a rogue employee had posted a file […]
Religious discrimination in the work place
The issue of religious discrimination in the work place is a sensitive one which employers need to consider carefully. As set out in the Equality Act 2010 it is unlawful to discriminate against individuals because of their religion or belief, or lack of religion or belief either directly or indirectly. Given the diversity of religions […]
Holiday Pay claims: how far back can you go? The impact of King v Sash Windows C-214/16 CJEU
The decision of the CJEU in King v Sash Windows C-214/16 CJEU has been widely reported and discussed. Mr King had worked for a considerable period of time- years, rather than months – without taking holiday. He had worked for a 13-year period but had been afforded the facility for exercise of the right to […]
“Fundamental Dishonesty” in the Court of Appeal
Paul Mertens reviews the recent decision of Howlett v Davies [2017] EWCA Civ 1696, the first case in which the Court of Appeal has considered the approach to “fundamental dishonesty” as an exception to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) under CPR 44.16(1). Background Howlett v Davies was a fairly commonplace PI claim arising from a […]
Martin Revisited – the meaning of ‘supply’ in the context of ‘being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug
In Martin, the legal interpretation of the word ‘supply’ in the context of ‘being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug to another’ was significantly altered, changing the way that it had been understood for the previous 29 years. In Martin, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ stated that ‘the ‘word “supply” is a broad […]
Discrimination: something arising from disability
It is no secret that there are immense pressures upon teaching staff in UK schools at present. Teacher shortages, increased workloads, and constant assessments have lead to stressful working environments across the country. These environments can affect some more than others, particularly those with disabilities. In the recent case of City of York Council v […]
Employment tribunal fees unlawful
Tribunal Fees: What we suspected all along! No impact on tribunal costs, no impact on reducing unmeritorious claims, indirectly discriminatory to women and did not result in more ACAS settlements. Today is a good news day for access to justice (and for employment lawyers!) In a pivotal judgment based on the principle of access to […]
Wilson v Lassman (Executor of the Estate of Wilson)[2017] EWHC 85 (Ch)
This case illustrates the need for care when approaching probate claims. Facts C sought an order, pronouncing, against his late father’s will, and revoking the grant of probate obtained by D as executor and sole beneficiary under the will. C contended that the will was not validly executed contrary to S.9 Wills Act 1837. The […]
Practical tips for ex-parte non-molestation orders
On 18 January 2017, the President of the Family Division issued ‘The Practice Guidance on the Duration of Ex-Parte (Without Notice) Orders’. A few months on, this article is intended to give some practical guidance as to how to approach Non-Molestation Orders in practice. 1. The duration of the Order The guidance from the President […]