We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 98

Different treatment of employees on dismissal may be justified
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • January 25 2012

It is well established in case law that disparity of treatment between employees who have misbehaved in the same way may be grounds for unfair dismissal


Negligent misstatement
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 20 2011

An interesting case in the High Court examined the situation where an ex-employer badmouths a former employee several years after employment has ended


Reasonable adjustments: EAT guidance
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • November 28 2011

In Salford NHS Primary Care Trust v Smith the EAT decided that it was not a reasonable adjustment for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA, now enshrined in the Equality Act) to propose a career break to an employee who was on long term sick leave


Burden of proof test in whistleblowing cases
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • January 5 2011

In Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester, the EAT disagreed with the EAT decisions in London Borough of Harrow v Knight and Aspinall v MSI Mech Forge Limited when determining whether a detriment had been suffered as a result of a whistleblowing disclosure


Protection from harassment: course of conduct
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 20 2011

In Marinello v City of Edinburgh Council the Inner House of the Court of Session has held that an interval of 17 months between incidents of harrassment at work did not automatically mean that there could not be a course of conduct for the purposes of protection under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997


Sharon Shoesmith
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 20 2011

As reported widely in the press, the Court of Appeal has allowed Sharon Shoesmith’s appeal against the Secretary of State and Haringey London Borough Council relating to judicial review of the decision to dismiss her in the light of the death of Baby P


Costs relevant for objective justification
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 20 2011

In Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd, the EAT held that G4S’s request to a Muslim security guard to man a site throughout Friday lunchtimes when he wished to attend his Mosque was, in the circumstances, objectively justifiable


Compensation for career long loss
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 20 2011

The Court of Appeal has given some useful guidance on how to calculate long term loss in Wardle v Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank


EAT considers liability for agency worker’s discriminatory acts
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 20 2011

The EAT in Mahood v Irish Centre Housing Ltd held that under discrimination legislation, an employer could be held liable for the discriminatory acts of an agency worker in a situation where that worker was exercising the authority of, or being controlled by, the employer or where he had the employer’s authority to do the acts (which were capable of being done in a discriminatory manner just as they were capable of being done in a lawful manner


Referral to ECJ in Alemo-Herron
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • August 5 2011

The Supreme Court has made a reference to the ECJ in the case of Parkwood Leisure v Alemo-Herron to ascertain whether the Acquired Rights Directive precludes national courts from applying a ‘dynamic’ interpretation to regulation 5 of TUPE (automatic transfer of employees and associated rights and liabilities), particularly in relation to the ongoing application of collective agreements