“An individual can bring a claim against a former employer for victimisation that took place after the employment ended, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“There is no requirement for employers to consult with employees working in a part of the business that will not be transferred to a new owner under TUPE laws, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th April 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“It was axiomatic that the Employment Appeal Tribunal could only interfere with the decision of an employment tribunal if it identified an error of law. In relation to unfair dismissal the appeal tribunal had to address the issue of whether the employment tribunal had found that the employer had satisfied the reasonable responses test and any criticisms of the employment tribunal were to be directed at that issue.”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A City banker was ‘victimised’ by her bank after it discovered she was suing her former employer for sexual discrimination, a tribunal has ruled. Latifa Bouabdillah was sacked by Commerzbank after less than a month when her boss heard she was suing her former employer, Deutsche Bank, for more than £1m in damages for sexual discrimination.”
The Guardian, 15th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“In this case, a member of the Union brought various claims of harassment related to his ‘race, religion or belief’ under section 57 of the Equality Act 2010. The wide ranging allegations made by the Claimant arose, in essence, from the way in which Union had handled the Israel/Palestine debate. For example, claims arose from motions debated at the Union’s congress on proposals for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions and related questions. The Claimant alleged that the Union was guilty of ‘institutional anti-Semitism’ which he alleged constituted harassment of him as a Jewish member of the Union.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“There is growing anecdotal evidence that some UK firms are filtering out job candidates with foreign-sounding names”
The Guardian, 11th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The case of Fraser v University and College Union concerned a number of claims of harassment by the Claimant against the Respondent union of which he was a member, under section 57 of the Equality Act 2010. The complaints were based on or stemmed from motions debated at the Respondent’s Congress (annual conference) in the years 2007 to 2011 on proposals for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.”
Employment Law Blog, 3rd April 2013
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
“From the beginning of April 2013 the chances of getting help with legal bills will be slim. The Law Society estimates 650,000 cases will no longer qualify, including 20,000 employment cases and 200,000 in family law.”
The Guardian, 23rd March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“As technology becomes more sophisticated, so do the challenges faced by employers. A seemingly common query relates to the legality of covert recordings made by employees of face to face meetings with managers or colleagues on smart phones or tablets.”
Technology Law Update, 15th March 2013
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
“The Government has set out plans to ‘streamline’ the employment tribunal system, which will include a new power to ‘strike out’ claims with little chance of success before they proceed to a full hearing.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th March 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Employment tribunals are to become the ‘last resort, not the first port of call’ after the government’s announcement today that it has accepted proposals in a fundamental review of procedure for tribunals.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 14th March 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 145; [2013] WLR (D) 88
“Fairness did not require that a respondent to an allegation of unfitness to practise his profession had to be given an opportunity to give evidence as to the substance of that allegation before a tribunal considering whether to make an interim suspension order or other interim order under a legislative scheme, such as that contained in the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, since that was not what the statutory scheme envisaged or what fairness required at the interim stage. Guidance was given as to the procedure to be followed by a committee, considering whether to make an interim order pending the substantive hearing of a complaint against a member of the profession, in order to satisfy the fairness requirement.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A dinner lady told a child’s parents that their daughter had been tied to a fence and whipped with a skipping rope by some other pupils, repeated the same to the press and then was dismissed for breach of confidentiality and acting in a manner likely to bring the school into disrepute. An employment tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but dismissed her whistleblowing claim and reduced her compensation for unfair dismissal on the grounds of Polkey and for contributory fault. The tribunal did not, however, determine the question of whether the claimant could lawfully be disciplined for ‘telling tales out of school’ (as it put it).”
Employment Law Blog, 27th February 2013
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
“In R (on the application of Prudential Plc and another) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2013] UKSC 1 a majority of the Supreme Court held that legal advice privilege does not extend to protect legal advice given by professionals who are not lawyers and that it is for Parliament, not the courts, to decide whether and how the privilege should be extended.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th February 2013
“Employees who ‘blow the whistle’ on bad behaviour by bosses can still take advantage of legal protections even after the employment relationship has ended, a tribunal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 25th February 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“You can say what you like about local authorities – and people do, knowing that the authority itself (as opposed to any individual member or employee) cannot sue in defamation. This was first established back in 1891 in Manchester Corporation v Williams [1891] 1 Q.B. 94, where it was held that the council could not complain about a letter to a newspaper alleging that ‘bribery and corruption have existed and done their nefarious work’ in a number of its departments.”
Education Law Blog, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.education11kbw.com
“Whistleblowers are to be protected from harassment and bullying from co-workers after criticism that current legislation fails to protect those who speak out.”
The Guardian, 21st February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that the use of bad language was evidently merely an expression of bad temper and not intended to express hostility to the Pope or Catholicism and that it did not constitute harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th February 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025