‘The Supreme Court has confirmed that a Tribunal may find that the reason for the dismissal is something other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker – even where that reason is genuinely held by the decision maker; Royal Mail Group Ltd v. Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 (“Jhuti”).’
Parklane Plowden, 9th December 2019
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The question for the Supreme Court in Royal Mail Group Limited v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 was whether in a claim for unfair dismissal can the reason for the dismissal be other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker?’
Pallant Chambers, 5th December 2019
Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk
‘A law firm made an unlawful deduction of wages when it took £1,700 from the salary of a sacked solicitor turned office manager to cover the cost of a training course, an employment judge has ruled.’
Legal Futures, December 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in Royal Mail Group Ltd -v- Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 and has held unanimously that when deciding what was the reason for dismissal in unfair dismissal, it may not be enough simply to consider what was subjectively in the mind of the decision-maker. In a unanimous decision delivered by Lord Wilson (Lady Hale (President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge and Lady Arden concurring) the Supreme Court has held that where the real reason is hidden from the decision-maker behind an invented reason, the court must penetrate through the invention and decide upon the basis of the real reason [paragraphs 60-62 of the Judgment]. ‘
Littleton Chambers, 27th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The appeal concerned the dismissal of Ms Jhuti from her employment by Royal Mail Group Ltd. The key question of law that it raised was whether in a claim for unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the reason for the dismissal can be other than that given to the employee by the employer’s appointed decision-maker.’
UKSC Blog, 27th November 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Two recent cases have cast light on the issue of legal professional privilege in employment disputes.’
Littleton Chambers, 12th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The EAT, presided over by the President, has in its judgment in Cadent Gas v Singh, set out four important matters in relation to dismissals for impermissible reasons including whistleblowing.’
Old Square Chambers, 14th November 2019
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘A primary school headteacher who was sacked after having sex with two 17-year-old boys he met through a gay dating app has been awarded nearly £700,000 compensation by a tribunal.’
The Guardian, 15th November 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Employers paying for an employee to speak to a lawyer about settling a dismissal dispute need to stump up significantly more than £500 for proper legal advice, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 12th November 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A security officer based at BBC New Broadcasting House has won his unfair dismissal claim against his employer, Interserve.’
Garden Court Chambers, 21st October 2019
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘A former senior in-house lawyer at Shell cannot rely on a leaked internal email or an overheard pub conversation in his discrimination claim against the company, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 23rd October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Redacting comments made by a company’s lawyer on a draft dismissal letter while disclosing other privileged documents was “impermissible cherry picking”, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 15th October 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A former salaried partner, permitted by an employment tribunal earlier this year to sue her law firm as an employee, has lost all but one of her claims.’
Legal Futures, 9th October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A doctor who refused to call a transgender woman “she” because of his Christian faith has lost his employment tribunal.’
The Independent, 3rd October 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was wrong to sanction a senior finance partner at City giant Hogan Lovells for discriminating against his children’s pregnant nanny, a leading regulatory QC has said.’
Legal Futures, 1st October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A senior finance partner at City giant Hogan Lovells has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after a tribunal found that he discriminated against his children’s pregnant nanny.’
Legal Futures, 29th August 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A transgender woman made redundant by the Times has lost an employment tribunal in which she claimed to have experienced discrimination and unfair dismissal.’
The Guardian, 23rd August 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Organisations can be held liable for breaching employment contracts even if their employees have been working in the country illegally, according to the Court of Appeal in London.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd August 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
© Inner Temple Library 2023