‘It is fair to say that this year has been something of an annus horribilis for Uber. Amid the non-renewal of its London licence, data hacks and numerous other controversies, the ride-hailing business has also been doing battle in the UK employment tribunals. In the latest stage of this particular journey, Uber did not fare well.’
Law Society's Gazette, 4th December 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that claimants still bear an initial burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”), despite the change in wording in s. 136 as compared with the pre-EA legislation. In coming to this conclusion, the Court ruled that the interpretation placed on that section by the EAT in Efobi v Royal Mail Group Limited (UKEAT/0203/16, 10 August 2017) was wrong, and should not be followed.The Court also considered the distinction between matters of fact and explanation for the purposes of applying s. 136 EA 2010.’
Employment Blog, 27th November 2017
Source: employment11kbw.com
‘The Supreme Court has decided that a doctor is not prevented from suing the GMC in the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) under the Equality Act 2010 (“2010 Act”) by the availability of judicial review.’
Blackstone Chambers, 1st November 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘“Tainted information”, or “Iago”, cases, in which employers are manipulated into dismissing employees by their co-workers, have thrown up difficult questions for Tribunals in both whistleblowing and discrimination claims. The latest guidance has been given in two recent cases: Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2017] EWCA Civ 1632 and International Petroleum Ltd v Osipov [2017] UKEAT/0058/17.’
Littleton Chambers, 22nd November 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In the UK Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) last week, Uber lost the latest case brought against it by its drivers. Across the world, a succession of lawsuits have sought to argue, usually with success, that Uber’s drivers are able to avail themselves of at least some of the protections of employment law. This is a welcome step towards a reconceptualization of the legal approach to eligibility for employment rights.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 21st November 2017
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘All those eligible for employment tribunal fee refunds can apply from today, following a successful opening phase of the scheme.”
Ministry of Justice, 15th November 2017
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘A Westminster City Council employee has won a partial victory at an employment tribunal in a case that arose over a disputed pot plant.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th November 2017
Source: localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Solicitors claiming wrongful dismissal can potentially hold the Solicitors Regulation Authority to account in the employment tribunal following a Supreme Court judgment which clarifies rules on bringing complaints against qualifications bodies. The long-running case Michalak v General Medical Council and others centred on a discrimination complaint brought against the medical regulator by Dr Ewa Michalak. The SRA intervened in support of the GMC.’
Law Society's Gazette, 3rd November 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The issue of access to justice, and specifically the cost of litigation as a bar to accessing justice, is rightly becoming a major constitutional issue in the UK.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th October 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The government expects to refund £33m to employment tribunal claimants after the Supreme Court ruled tribunal fees unlawful.’
Litigation Futures, 20th October 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Employment tribunals are failing to hit basic targets and judges are departing without being replaced, users have revealed. Minutes of the National User Group Meeting on employment tribunals report that tribunals are falling short of targets for completing and disposing of claims.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th October 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The latest hearing in the UK’s largest ever private sector equal pay claim is due to kick off on Wednesday, in a case that could eventually see around 15,000 predominantly female Asda workers recovering well over £100m in pay.’
The Independent, 10th October 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Alex Hawley reflects on the rise in anti-austerity sentiment & the possible impact of the Unison judgment on civil court fees.’
New Law Journal, 15th September 2017
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Drivers for London-based minicab company Addison Lee could be owed wages and holiday pay after an employment tribunal test case found that some had been wrongly classed as self-employed.’
The Guardian, 25th September 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A paralegal employed by a personal injury firm under an oral contract was entitled to a bonus payment worth almost £14,000, an employment tribunal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 5th September 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A litigant in person who “abruptly” walked out of a detailed assessment hearing before the end of the first day and failed to return, has been ordered to pay £82,930 by an employment judge.’
Litigation Futures, 4th September 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A short stay on employment tribunal claims brought “in reliance upon” the Supreme Court’s recent finding that the fee regime introduced in 2013 was unlawful has been lifted by the tribunal service.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th August 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Almost everyone has an immediate intuitive understanding of direct discrimination. That is not to say that there are no difficult cases, but the core concept is easily grasped. Imagine an employer with an express policy of refusing to employ women. In a case of that sort the discrimination is obvious. To use the language of Equality Act 2010, s. 13, the employer treats women less favourably because of their sex. The reason for the simplicity of direct discrimination is that it usually needs no context for the discriminatory impact of the criterion to be apparent. The criterion is inherently discriminatory.’
11KBW, 10th August 2017
Source: www.11kbw.com
‘The Supreme Court today [30 July] allowed UNISON’s appeal and held that fees imposed in respect of proceedings in employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal are unlawful because of their effects on access to justice.’
Blackstone Chambers, 30th July 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal has today given important guidance on how to assess compensation in cases where a claimant’s injury has multiple causes. The decision will be of particular relevance to cases where an employer’s conduct acts in conjunction with other factors to cause psychiatric harm, such as stress at work or depression, to a vulnerable employee.’
Blackstone Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025