In Lopez Ribalda & Ors v Spain (Application nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13) the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the installation of and reliance on covert surveillance at work was a breach of the workers’ right to...more
The annual increases in compensation in the employment tribunals will take effect on 6 April 2018. The new rates apply where the event giving rise to the compensation (such as the termination of employment) occurs on or after...more
In The Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey [2017] UKEAT 0260_16_1912 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether someone who was not disabled could succeed in a disability discrimination claim on the basis that...more
In Rochford v WNS Global Services (UK) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 2205 the Court of Appeal considered whether an employer’s discriminatory demotion justified an employee’s refusal to carry out any work.
Mr Rochford was employed...more
In Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket PLC [2017] EWHC3 113 (QB), the High Court considered whether an employer was liable for an employee’s malicious disclosure of personal data belonging to other employees. This...more
In Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Denby (UKEAT/0314/16), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered where liability for discrimination sits where a decision-maker is influenced by others.
Mr Denby was a...more
In King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd and another (C-214/16), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered whether a worker was entitled to be paid on termination for periods of accrued but untaken holiday going back...more
In Graham v Agilitas IT Solutions Ltd (UKEAT/0212/17), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether an employer could cherry-pick which parts of a meeting were covered by the “without prejudice” privilege.
Mr...more
In Otero Ramos v Servicio Galego de Saude (C-531/15), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered the obligation of employers towards breastfeeding mothers.
Ms Otero Ramos was a breastfeeding mother employed as an...more
In Uber BV and others v Aslam and others UKEAT/0056/17, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the 2016 employment tribunal decision that Uber’s drivers are workers. As such, they qualify for additional rights including...more
In Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2017] EWCA Civ 1632 the Court of Appeal considered whether an employee who had made protected disclosures had been unfairly dismissed by a manager who was unaware that the employee had made such...more
In NHS 24 v Pillar UKEATS/0005/16, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the appropriate scope of an employer’s investigation into alleged misconduct in disciplinary proceedings.
Ms Pillar was employed by NHS 24...more
In Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth [2017] EWHC 2019 (QB), the High Court considered whether the suspension of an employee amounted to a fundamental breach of contract on the part of her employer.
A primary school...more
In Barbulescu v Romania (Application no. 61496/08) [2017] ECHR 742, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) clarified the right of employers to monitor employees’ private communications in the...more
In ICAP Management Services Limited v Dean Berry and BGC Services (Holdings) LLP [2017] EWHC 1321, the High Court examined the circumstances in which TUPE may apply to a share sale.
Mr Berry was a senior executive at ICAP...more
The Vento bands for “injury to feelings” awards in discrimination claims have been increased. The new figures, applicable to claims issued on or after 11 September 2017, are as follows: -
Lower band, for the least serious...more
In July, we reported on a landmark decision in which the U.K.’s Supreme Court unanimously found the Employment Tribunal fee regime to be unlawful. Below is an update on the legal and practical developments since that...more
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has clarified the law surrounding the monitoring of employees’ private communications in the workplace. The decision overturns the earlier ruling of the lower...more
In JP Morgan Securities v Ktorza [2017] UKEAT 0311-16-1105 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether there was a requirement for an employer to establish that an employee’s conduct was culpable when determining...more
In Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1054 the Court of Appeal examined the enforceability of a non-compete covenant.
Ms Tillman was the global co-head of financial services at Egon Zehnder Ltd (EZ), a professional...more
The summer months have seen two binding decisions from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the continuing litigation around holiday pay.
In Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willetts & Others [2017]...more
The Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices (the Review), an independent report commissioned by the U.K. government to analyse the changing employment landscape, was published on 11 July 2017....more
In Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 979 the Court of Appeal provided some much needed clarity on the definition of “public interest” in whistleblower claims.
Mr Nurmohamed was a...more
In a landmark decision in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, the U.K.’s Supreme Court unanimously found that the Employment Tribunal fee regime is unlawful.
Since 2013, claimants have had to...more
In the case of MPT Group Limited v Peel [2017] EWHC 1222 (Ch), the High Court examined whether departing employees were required to disclose their intention to compete after the expiry of their restrictive covenants.
The...more