Hello and welcome back to your weekly case law update. Last week was our November newsletter which had features on a film about the gig economy, political leaders being tribunal witnesses and Samantha Cameron’s unpaid internships. Before beginning this week’s update, a huge thank you to everyone who attended our seminar yesterday. We hope everyone [...]
Our next case concerns tribunal procedure and awards. The questions in this case are: Can the Employment Tribunal reduce an award if the employee makes a covert recording? Can making a covert recording amount to gross misconduct? Ms Stockman, the Claimant, was a Russian national who worked for Phoenix House, the Respondent, a charity that […]
Good morning and welcome back to your weekly Case Law Update. Last week we looked at vicarious liability, Christmas parties and mitigation of losses. This week we will be looking at fixed term contracts. To mix things up, today’s case is a European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment. The ECJ decides cases bought by individuals […]
Our next case is thankfully not as gruesome as the first and concerns constructive dismissal and mitigation of losses. Under Section 123(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, Claimants have a duty to mitigate their losses in unfair dismissal claims and a failure to do so will reduce the compensatory award. This includes looking for work, not […]
Hello , this week’s case comes a day early because, due to Easter, we have a bank holiday tomorrow, one of the few occasions any weekend reveller can rejoice at having ‘that Thursday feeling’. PJH Law would also like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Easter, and, more importantly, a relaxing long […]
It’s that time of the week again. No. Not Friday. Case law update time! You might think last week’s newsletter celebrating the dawn of spring would lead to lighter, more cheerful cases. However, you thought wrong as this week’s case concerns theft, breach of trust, gross misconduct and eBay. Today’s question: Can inconsistent answers during a disciplinary […]
Hello , I know what you’re thinking, it’s that time again. Another week, another tenuous case law link. However, there is no tenuous link this week, as there is no current affairs issue to link the case to. Nonetheless that does not mean you shouldn’t read it, as it concerns long term absence and reasonable […]
Case of the week is back and no it isn’t a sequel to V for Vendetta. This weeks’ case is about inappropriate conduct and Polkey deductions. Today’s question: Can a Claimant who hasn’t committed gross misconduct still be fairly dismissed for it. The Claimant, V, was a Caretaker at a primary school run by Hertfordshire […]
In Mitchells of Lancaster (Brewers) Limited v Tattersall the EAT upheld a finding that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed where there was a pool of 5 employees but the Respondent hadn’t considered dismissing any of the other 4 employees instead of the Claimant. The EAT did however find that a polkey reduction of only 20% […]
This case at the EAT illustrates how Polkey can operate to reduce the Claimant’s award after a dismissal is found to be unfair on procedural grounds. In this case, the defect in process was not considering all available suitable alternative employment. However, based on the evidence before the Tribunal (which included that the Claimant rejected […]
In Mr E Ho v The University of Manchester, the EAT have followed the decision in Kelly-Madden v Manor Surgery that where an employer fails to follow the (now repealed) statutory dismissal procedure, it is not open for it to argue that failing to follow the procedure made no difference and therefore the dismissal […]
