‘The public falling out between Jose’ Mourinho and Eva Carneiro happened during the first game of the season at Stamford Bridge, home of Chelsea Football Club. The manner in which this situation unfolded dominated the headlines, which resulted in a settlement at the Employment Tribunal, Croydon, London on Tuesday 7th June 2016.’
Park Square Barristers, 15th June 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘”Substantial changes” to the current employment tribunal fee regime are required if an appropriate balance is to be struck between meeting some of the costs of operation and maintaining access to justice, according to an influential committee of MPs.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘MPs have hit out at the government’s approach to increasing court fees, with major changes needed to restore an “acceptable level of access to the employment tribunals”, and also urged ministers not to introduce any more civil court fee rises until there is research into the impact of what has been done to date, particularly on London’s competitiveness as a litigation centre.’
Litigation Futures, 20th June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘Whether a group of workers consists of an “organised grouping” which will automatically transfer to a new service provider when the work that they do is taken over by that provider will depend on their activities “immediately before” the transfer, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Workers unfairly dismissed by their employers are being denied access to justice because of new Government court fees, a cross party committee of MPs has warned. Since the new employment tribunal fees were introduced in 2013 there has been a “precipitate drop” of almost 70 per cent in the number of cases being brought, the Commons Justice committee said. It can now cost as much as £1,200 simply to bring a claim.’
The Independent, 20th June 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Every year the Government reviews and uprates the level of employment protection payments. The new rates come into effect on 6 April each year.’
No. 5 Chambers, 27th May 2016
Source: www.no5.com
‘While employment lawyers await the outcome of a government review of employment tribunal fees, research by a conciliatory body suggests one in five cases were withdrawn as a result of the ‘off-putting’ fees.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Employment Tribunal did not ’misdirect’ itself when it dismissed two interpreters’ claims for racial discrimination against the Ministry of Justice, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 17th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on childcare vouchers is at odds with the approach taken by most employers.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 9th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Four bicycle couriers are taking their companies to a tribunal in a bid to get employed workers’ rights, including paid holidays and the minimum wage.’
BBC News, 22nd April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Dr Michalak’s name may be familiar to you. She was the doctor who brought a claim against her NHS employer (‘the Trust’) for sex and race discrimination, amongst other matters. Not only did the litigation reveal eye-watering events, it resulted in an eye-watering award of compensation (close to £4.5m) from the Leeds Employment Tribunal (‘ET’). The ET found that there had been a sustained campaign of unlawful conduct by various individuals against Dr Michalak culminating in a sham dismissal and causing post-traumatic stress disorder in Dr Michalak (Michalak v Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Others [2011] ET 1810815/2008).’
Littleton Chambers, 24th March 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The Football Association will be asked to launch an investigation into Leeds United owner Massimo Cellino and his former executive director Adam Pearson for alleged sexual discrimination, after an employment tribunal delivered a damning indictment of their decision to dismiss an experienced welfare worker from the club.’
The Independent, 13th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Dodge the tumbleweed blowing down the corridors, enter any Employment Tribunal (ET) waiting room and you will almost certainly see at least one employment lawyer sitting, staring at the dregs in their polystyrene cup looking to see whether the tealeaves will reveal if and when ET litigation will rise again, or whether the end of the ET system is nigh.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th March 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Nicholas Siddall analyses the recent decision of Simler J(P) in Arch Initiatives v GMW Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust & Others [2016] UKEAT/0267/15/RN and seeks to analyse the wider importance of the decision.’
Littleton Chambers, 5th April 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Michalak v The General Medical Council & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 172: This important case deals with the remedies available to individuals who claim to have suffered from discrimination, victimization, harassment or detriment in the treatment they have received from a “qualifications body” under s.53 of the Equality Act 2010 viz. any authority or body which can confer a relevant qualification (e.g. the GMC, ACCA etc.). It also clarifies the understanding of the place of judicial review in the context of internal and statutory appeals in cases of alleged discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th April 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
General Medical Council v Michalak [2016] EWCA Civ 172
‘The claimant doctor made a complaint of discrimination against the respondent General Medical Council, alleging that, as a qualifications body, it had subjected her to a detriment in the course of its Fitness to Practise Panel procedure, contrary to section 53(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010. At a preliminary hearing to determine whether the employment tribunal had jurisdiction under section 120 of the Act, an employment judge held that the claim was not excluded by section 120(7), as the act complained of was not subject “by virtue of an enactment” to “an appeal or proceedings in the nature of an appeal”, since there was no right of appeal under the Medical Act 1983 from a decision of the panel, nor did judicial review provide a means to challenge its decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the General Medical Council’s appeal, holding that judicial review proceedings were proceedings “in the nature of an appeal” that arose “by virtue of an enactment”, namely section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that were available to the claimant, thereby precluding the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In the judgment of the EAT in Day-v-Health Education England & Ors [2016] UKEAT/0250/15/RN it has been held that doctors in training do not possess the requisite relationship to allow them to bring a whistleblowing claim against Health Education England (their training organiser)’
Littleton Chambers, 9th March 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Is an employer ever required to dis-apply an absence management policy or delay dismissal, as a reasonable adjustment for disability? Recent decisions have suggested that the answer is no, but in Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] IRLR 216, the Court of Appeal has redefined the correct comparator in a disability claim in a way which may make this easier for an employee to argue.’
Tanfield Chambers, 9th March 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A gay clergyman who lost an employment tribunal against the Church of England has been given the right to appeal.’
The Guardian, 15th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025