‘In what multiple commentators have hailed as a landmark legal case, Norwich Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant’s “ethical veganism” is a philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic for the purposes of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 (“s.10”) following a preliminary hearing on 2nd and 3rd January 2020.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th January 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Ethical veganism is a “philosophical belief” and so is protected in law, a tribunal has ruled for the first time.’
BBC News, 3rd January 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A researcher who lost her job after tweeting that men cannot change their biological sex has lost an employment tribunal after her opinions were ruled “absolutist”.’
The Independent, 19th December 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has confirmed that a Tribunal may find that the reason for the dismissal is something other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker – even where that reason is genuinely held by the decision maker; Royal Mail Group Ltd v. Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 (“Jhuti”).’
Parklane Plowden, 9th December 2019
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The question for the Supreme Court in Royal Mail Group Limited v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 was whether in a claim for unfair dismissal can the reason for the dismissal be other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker?’
Pallant Chambers, 5th December 2019
Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk
‘On 21 January 2014, a road traffic accident took place in Milton Keynes (liability having been conceded). The Claimant’s (hereinafter referred to as “C”) Honda Jazz was struck from behind by a Fiat Punto; there are 3 defendants (referred to collectively as “D”).’
3PB, 4th November 2019
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in Royal Mail Group Ltd -v- Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 and has held unanimously that when deciding what was the reason for dismissal in unfair dismissal, it may not be enough simply to consider what was subjectively in the mind of the decision-maker. In a unanimous decision delivered by Lord Wilson (Lady Hale (President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge and Lady Arden concurring) the Supreme Court has held that where the real reason is hidden from the decision-maker behind an invented reason, the court must penetrate through the invention and decide upon the basis of the real reason [paragraphs 60-62 of the Judgment]. ‘
Littleton Chambers, 27th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The Respondent (“R”) provides mental health services including a secure, residential unit for men who are the subject of a treatment order under s3 Mental Health Act 1987.’
3PB, 4th November 2019
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Judicial mediation seems to be something of a Marmite topic among employment practitioners. Some see it as a cost-effective option for settling what might otherwise prove to be long-running and costly litigation. Others see it as a time-consuming and often unsuccessful exercise, conducted by individuals who are employed as judges (not mediators) for a reason.’
Littleton Chambers, 25th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The EAT, presided over by the President, has in its judgment in Cadent Gas v Singh, set out four important matters in relation to dismissals for impermissible reasons including whistleblowing.’
Old Square Chambers, 14th November 2019
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘A primary school headteacher who was sacked after having sex with two 17-year-old boys he met through a gay dating app has been awarded nearly £700,000 compensation by a tribunal.’
The Guardian, 15th November 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Employers paying for an employee to speak to a lawyer about settling a dismissal dispute need to stump up significantly more than £500 for proper legal advice, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 12th November 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A legal secretary who claimed she felt humiliated and insulted by a colleague commenting on her 50th birthday has lost her claim for harassment and age discrimination against the law firm.’
Legal Futures, 8th November 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘S145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”) is an under explored provision which has only just received the attention of the Court of Appeal, and has only once been considered by the EAT. It is important because some 26.3% of UK workers remain subject to collective bargaining but many employers seek every year to decouple from collective agreements in one form or another wholly or in part to buttress the managerial prerogative.’
Littleton Chambers, 4th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In an important decision, the Court of Appeal in Bath Hill Court v Coletta has held that, in an unauthorised deduction of wages claim for non payment of the national minimum wage in the ET, there is no backstop on the recovery of deductions, enabling Mr Coletta to claim 15 years’ worth of losses.’
Old Square Chambers, 17th October 2019
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘A new law ensuring that employees signing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) receive independent legal advice will “increase the onus” on solicitors to act properly when drafting them, the government has said.’
Legal Futures, 30th October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A former senior in-house lawyer at Shell cannot rely on a leaked internal email or an overheard pub conversation in his discrimination claim against the company, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 23rd October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024