‘Yesterday [30 April] the Law Commission released its Recommendations following The Law Commission’s 13th Programme of Law Reform which included a review of the employment law hearing structures.’
Park Square Barristers, 1st May 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A former member of the board of the Weinstein Company does have to comply with a disclosure order in a sexual harassment case despite not living in the UK, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 7th May 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On 29 April 2020, the Law Commission published its report on Employment Law Hearing Structures. The Report runs to just over 200 pages and concludes with 23 recommendations to improve the Employment Tribunal’s ability to resolve disputes.’
Littleton Chambers, 30th April 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘On 29 April 2020 the Law Commission published its recommendations for changes to the jurisdiction and powers of employment tribunals. It would be fair to say that the statutory nature of the tribunal’s powers has given rise to anomalies: jurisdiction is constrained in certain contexts, and there are a number of discrepancies between the extent of the jurisdiction of civil courts on the one hand and employment tribunals on the other.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘Doubling the time limit for launching claims to six months and allowing workers to bring breach of contract claims while still employed are among Law Commission recommendations for employment tribunal (ET) reform.’
Litigation Futures, 30th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Employment tribunals should be given powers to make awards of up to £100,000 for breach of contract and to deal with disputes where staff are still in work, the Law Commission has recommended.’
The Guardian, 29th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘One of Britain’s leading forensic scientists was a victim of sexual discrimination after she was asked by her boss whether she disliked him because she was gay, an employment tribunal has ruled.’
Daily Telegraph, 23rd April 2020
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘An employment tribunal has expressed its “incredulity” at the way a solicitor’s former secretary befriended one of his clients and ended up in the client’s will.’
Legal Futures, 21st April 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A council head of legal secured a fresh Employment Tribunal hearing because a member of the original tribunal was asleep for part of the proceedings, it has emerged.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In Forstater v CGD (2019), a think tank did not renew its contract for consultancy services with the claimant, Maya Forstater, allegedly because of Forstater expressing so-called ‘gender critical’ beliefs. Forstater claimed that she had suffered direct discrimination for having a protected belief under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. In a preliminary decision, the employment tribunal considered whether the claimant’s belief was indeed protected. Tayler J identified the core of the claimant’s belief to be that sex is biologically immutable and, in no circumstances, is a trans woman ‘a woman’ or a trans man ‘a man’, even when the person in question has a Gender Recognition Certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (paragraph [77]). Due to the belief’s ‘no circumstances’ aspect, the judge labelled it ‘absolutist’ ([84]).’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 22nd March 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Tracey Robinson (‘C’) was hired by Mr Cathcart on behalf of the Crown Prince Ras-alKhaimah (‘the Sheikh’) in 2007 to carry out a number of duties including looking after the Sheikh’s children and properties in the UK. The contract clearly stipulated that C was responsible for paying her own tax.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘An experienced Crown prosecutor who resigned after developing post-traumatic stress order (PTSD) from being threatened at a magistrates’ court was not discriminated against, an employment tribunal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 26th March 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Edwin Jesudason (‘C’), was a paediatric surgeon who was an honorary consultant working in the Department of Paediatric Surgery (‘DPS’) in the respondent NHS trust from 2006 until he resigned in 2012. Between 2009 and 2014 he made a series of allegations to the Trust, regulatory bodies and the media where he alleged fundamental failings in the operation of the DPS including serious allegations of professional incompetence, use of improper medical practices, attempts to cover up wrongdoing and in some cases he named and criticised specific individuals.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Edwin Jesudason (‘C’), was a paediatric surgeon who was an honorary consultant working in the Department of Paediatric Surgery (‘DPS’) in the respondent NHS trust from 2006 until he resigned in 2012. Between 2009 and 2014 he made a series of allegations to the Trust, regulatory bodies and the media where he alleged fundamental failings in the operation of the DPS including serious allegations of professional incompetence, use of improper medical practices, attempts to cover up wrongdoing and in some cases he named and criticised specific individuals.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘This case concerned an equal pay claim brought by several women employed by HMRC. The pay system implemented by HMRC in respect of the claimants was one which employees moved through the pay band for their grade, from a fixed minimum up to a fixed maximum, by different amounts each year, without any fixed increments but with the amount of any increase depending on the pay award for the particular year. As a result of the way this system operated, one factor relevant to where an employee was within the band, was length of service: the longer an employee had been employed in the band, the more opportunities s/he would have had to move up towards the maximum.’
Old Square Chambers, 12th March 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Mr Ishola was employed by the respondent (TfL) as a customer services administrator. He was at all material times a disabled person suffering with depression and migraines. He raised a grievance about the conduct of a colleague in April 2015 which was not upheld, shortly after which he went on long-term sick leave. The sickness absence was managed by the respondent through a process of referrals to occupational health doctors and management review meetings. Ms Bhaimia was appointed as the “People Management Adviser” (or PMA) responsible for dealing with the claimant. The task of managing his absence on sick leave was given to Mr Walters.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘This appeal concerned a provision about long term disability benefit (“LTDB”) which formed part of the Claimant’s contract of employment. It provided for the employee to receive a Disability Income of 2/3rds of his Base Annual Salary less the State Invalidity Pension should he be absent from, and unable to, work due to sickness or injury for a continuous period of twenty-six weeks or more, which would commence twenty-six weeks after the start of his absence and continue until the earlier date of his “return to work, death or retirement”.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘How good are employment tribunals at resolving disputes between employers and staff? Joshua Rozenberg has been finding out.’
BBC Law in Action, 17th March 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Claimant (“C”), at the time of his dismissal, had worked for the Respondent (“R”) for a number of years and was employed as a Deputy Team Leader in the family intervention programme. He had been seconded however to a role within the Acton Team as a Support Worker. The complainant, referred to in the Judgment as “SR”, was a university student who was undertaking a 3-month work placement with R within the Ealing Team. She had shadowed C on 2 occasions but wasn’t mentored or supervised by him.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025