News archive: June 2016

  • Posted on June 30, 2016
    In Pnaiser v NHS England & Another, the Claimant, a manager at Coventry City Council was disabled. Following extended sickness absences, she was made redundant in March 2013. She signed a settlement agreement which included an agreed employment reference which was to be provided to prospective employers.
    Read more...
  • Posted on June 29, 2016
    In Carreras v United First Partnership Research, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an expectation for a disabled employee, having suffered serious injuries following a cycling accident, to work long hours was a PCP for the purposes of a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.
    Read more...
  • Posted on June 28, 2016
    The phrase ‘mixing business with pleasure’ is one which we are all familiar with. Personal relationships in the modern working world can present risks to businesses, particularly where they involve relationships between employees of competing companies. Controlling information being passed between companies is likely to be difficult to police, could result in damaging relationships with talented employees and potential employment tribunal claims. Deciding what action to take, if any, where there is a need to protect confidential information is likely to be an undesirable task for any employer. So how do you manage the situation? We set out some guidance below on the considerations and steps which you might like to adopt to minimise conflict and to protect the businesses interests.
    Read more...
    Posted in: Employment
  • Posted on June 28, 2016
    The Justice Select Committee has this week urged the Ministry of Justice to rescind the increase in divorce petition court fees from £410 to £550 which came into effect in March, earlier this year. The increase largely went under the radar as it was brought in with very short notice and was somewhat overshadowed by substantial increases in civil Court fees which had come into effect shortly beforehand.
    Read more...
    Posted in: Family
  • Posted on June 24, 2016
    The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has reaffirmed the position that the Acas Code of Practice does not apply to ill health dismissals in the case of Holmes v QinetiQ.
    Read more...
    Posted in: Employment
  • Posted on June 22, 2016
    The case of Wyatt v Vince has very recently concluded after almost five years of litigation in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The case is a very important family law case as it sets out the position for ex-spouses applying for a financial remedy many years after the original divorce proceedings have concluded.
    Read more...
    Posted in: Family
  • Posted on June 20, 2016
    With the Brexit vote due to take place this Thursday, we have examined some of the key European cases which have had a major impact on UK law and setting precedents on how future cases should be decided.
    Read more...
    Posted in: Employment, News
  • Posted on June 15, 2016
    The recent and unusual case of Pendleton v Derbyshire County Council and Another UKEAT/0238/15/LA has given rise to controversial discussions surrounding the topic of religion in the work place.
    Read more...
  • Posted on June 14, 2016
    As daunting as it may sound, vicarious liability is in actual fact a relatively straightforward term taken on its own. This occurs when an employer is held liable for the wrongful acts that have been committed by one employee in the course of employment. Unfortunately, ‘the course of employment’ is a phrase that is commonly known as being difficult to tackle.
    Read more...
    Posted in: Employment
  • Posted on June 8, 2016
    The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a warning to employees who take client records to a new company/employer that this is a criminal offence. As well as giving rise to implications for the employee in the form of injunctions and/damages claims by an employer all of which can be costly, risky and stressful, the ICO has highlighted the actions it took recently against Mr Lloyd who worked for Acorn Waste Management Limited in Shropshire.
    Read more...
    Posted in: Employment
  • Posted on June 7, 2016
    In the case of Bartholomews Agri Food v Thornton, the High Court has held that an employer cannot seek to rely on a restrictive covenant which would not have been enforceable on ‘day one’. An employee cannot effectively ‘grow into’ such a covenant to the employer’s benefit.
    Read more...
    Posted in: Employment
  • Posted on June 6, 2016
    In Carreras v United First Partners Research (UFPR), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned an Employment Tribunal’s decision that an expectation or assumption that an employee would work late was not a provision, criterion or practice which may give rise to the reasonable adjustments duty. The Tribunal had held that Mr Carreras had not properly pleaded the fact that he was subjected to a disadvantage by being expected to work late by stating that it was a ‘requirement’. Mr Carreras argued, on appeal, that he was not referring to a ‘requirement’ in a statutory sense but to demonstrate the PCP.
    Read more...

Expert legal advice you can rely on,
get in touch today:

Please let us know you are not a robot