‘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
‘In Kapenova v. Department of Health [2014] ICR 884, the first case of its kind in the health sector, the EAT has held that an entry criterion for the two year Foundation Programme for medicine graduates is a justified infringement of EU free movement rights. Kapenova demonstrates that: (i) a claim for unjustified infringement of free movement rights can be pursued as a claim for indirect nationality discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 before the Employment Tribunal, and; (ii) the approach to the justification defence under EU law and domestic law is the same.’
Littleton Chambers, 11th December 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In Sash Window Workshop v King theEmployment Appeal Tribunal returned to two of the central controversies in recent holiday pay case-law. Firstly the right to carry annual leave entitlement over from one leave year to the next. Secondly the right to claim back pay for untaken leave in historic leave years, particularly upon the termination of employment.’
Cloisters, 7th December 2014
Source: www.cloisters.com
Nayif v High Commission of Brunei Darrusalam [2014] EWCA Civ 1521; [2014] WLR (D) 508
‘Issue estoppel would not apply in circumstances where there had been no actual adjudication of the relevant issue and no action by a party which would justify treating him as having consented to not having the matter formally determined.’
WLR Daily, 27th November 2014
SOurce: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently addressed an issue that is of particular interest to technology companies: could making a PhD an absolute requirement when recruiting be indirectly discriminatory against older applicants? Unfortunately the EAT did not come up with a definitive answer, but in the best academic tradition, it has reformulated the question.’
Technology Law Update, 2nd December 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘In Chweidan v Mischon de Reya Solicitors [2014] EWHC 2685 (QB) Mrs Justice Simler considered the principles to be applied when assessing claims for loss of a chance and provided a helpful overview of a number of the leading authorities.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 17th November 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘An employment tribunal which decided to carry out its own internet research, apparently to help a litigant in person, has been condemned by Mr Justice Langstaff, president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).’
Litigation Futures, 20th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘At a time when the UK’s membership of the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) and our domestic Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) is a hot political topic, it is timely that the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has handed down a judgment considering Article 6 ECHR in relation to special time limit provisions for discrimination complaints brought by those in the Armed Forces: Duncan v Ministry of Defence.’
Cloisters, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.cloisters.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025