‘Charles Crow reviews recent decisions in relation to covert recordings by employees and the implications for Tribunals and employers.’
No. 5 Chambers, 12th January 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘A vexed question: Where is the boundary between assistance and being in the arena? And how does the internet impact on that. The latest attempt to give guidance is the curious case of East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sanders UKEAT/0217/14/RN before Langstaff P and 2 lay members.’
No. 5 Chambers, 12th January 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘Irvine Maccabe discusses practical issues and strategies to consider in relation to recusal, judicial misconduct and transcripts.’
No. 5 Chambers, 12th January 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT’s) judgment in the Bear Scotland case is the latest in a series of cases considering what must be included in the calculation of holiday pay under the UK’s Working Time Regulations (WTR). The ruling sent shockwaves through the business community, with some commentators estimating that around five million workers in the UK could be entitled to more holiday pay at a potential cost to companies of billions of pounds. Business Secretary Vince Cable even set up a taskforce to assess the possible impact of the EAT’s decision. Adam Solomon and Sophia Berry throw the spotlight on the Bear Scotland litigation in the context of other decisions on holiday pay and consider its implications. This article first appeared in the March 2015 edition of Tolley’s Employment Law Newsletter.’
Full story
Littleton Chambers, 17th March 2015
Source: www.littleton.com
‘If employers want to vary a contract of employment they must first make sure that they have a very clear right to do so.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th February 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In this article Cloisters’ barrister Paul Epstein QC comments on what disclosure actually means and what the obligations are in the Employment Tribunal. He discusses the different types of disclosure, the new CPR test and what parties need to do.’
Cloisters, 10th February 2015
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘In Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0130/14 the EAT was faced with a jurisdictional issue which is of practical importance but is somewhat bereft of appellate guidance. Since the CA is due to hear an appeal in July 2015, the decision is still in a state of flux.’
Cloisters, 3rd February 2015
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The number of women lodging pregnancy-discrimination claims has fallen by 40 per cent since the Government introduced fees of £1,200 to go to a tribunal, new figures have revealed.’
The Independent, 15th March 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘More than 1,000 former senior police officers are seeking compensation after being forced to retire under the controversial regulation A19.’
BBC News, 10th March 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A middle-aged accountant who said he was forced to dress up as Father Christmas and branded an “old buffer” has won his claim for unfair dismissal.’
BBC News, 6th March 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A group of employees who successfully appealed a tribunal ruling over the interpretation of their contracts cannot recover court fees because their union paid them, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 4th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has ruled that when long-running employment tribunal hearing collapsed as the result of the judge’s recusal due to apparent bias the claimants in the action could not obtain damages for wasted costs under section 6 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 (specifically Article 6, the right to a fair trial) or the EU Charter.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Those responsible for employment decisions in firms and businesses with multiple office locations will have been relieved that the Advocate General recommended a reversal of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s interpretation of ‘one establishment’ in the Woolworths cases (USDAW v Ethel Austin Ltd (In administration) UKEAT/0547/12/kn[2013] IRL886) when his opinion was handed down on 5 February 2015. However, as the European Court of Justice is not obliged to follow the AG’s opinion, we still have some time to wait for further clarity on this issue.’
The Futures of Law, 19th February 2015
Source: www.blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk
‘An experienced doctor, who has questioned the official explanation for the death of weapons expert David Kelly, was dismissed by text and email while on a family holiday after he blew the whistle about alleged discrepancies in the dispensing of strong painkillers at an army base.’
The Guardian, 30th January 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The High Court has dismissed a second judicial review application by the trade union UNISON against the recent introduction of employment tribunal fees. Lord Justice Elias said that the union had not been able to provide evidence of “any actual instances” of individuals that had been prevented from making a claim by the introduction of fees.’
OUT-LAW.com, 18th December 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Divisional Court (Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Foskett) has dismissed Unison’s second-generation attempt to challenge by judicial review the legality of the Employment Tribunal fees system but gave permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The “striking” reduction in claims (79 per cent fewer) presented to Employment Tribunals, Lord Justice Elias accepted, was evidence that the system was “extremely onerous” for people in the position of the hypothetical claimants construed by Unison in their legal argument but “not so burdensome as to render the right illusory” (paragraph 53).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th December 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘On the evidence before the court, the fee scheme imposed under the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 did not breach the European Union principle of effective access to a court and had not been demonstrated to be indirectly discriminatory to women.’
WLR Daily, 17th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Does use by an employee of a personal Twitter account in a way that is “intimidating, racist and anti disability” and “offensive to other groups of people including dentists, caravan drivers, golfers, the A&E department, Newcastle supporters, the police and disabled people” justify a decision to fire?’
Technology Law Update, 18th December 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025