Henry King considers a recent EAT decision setting out helpful guidance for how Tribunals balancing legitimate aims pleaded by an employer against the discriminatory effects suffered by employees in cases of objective justification.
HHJ Tucker has, in her EAT judgment in C v D, set out some useful guidance encouraging employment lawyers to move away from the common ‘narrative’ style of Tribunal pleadings.
The first Presidential Guidance on vulnerable parties and witnesses in employment tribunal proceedings was issued this April. Key parts of the guidance deal with (i) identifying when a participant is vulnerable, and (ii) case management: directions and orders.
A panel discussion, led by Harry Steinberg QC, of the state of the law and practice in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Morrisons and Barclays.
The High Court in Duchy Farm Kennels v Steels has handed down a decision on the nature of the confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement that might leave some employment lawyers scratching their heads.
This case, concerning the well-known Italian restaurant chain Carluccio’s, is the first case to consider the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, colloquially known as ‘furlough’, in the context of an administration.
In a much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court addresses the scope of an employer’s vicarious liability for acts by its employees, in particular the “misunderstandings” that have arisen since its previous landmark decision in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc.
The Supreme Court has considered whether vicarious liability can attach to an independent contractor, in a judgment that employment lawyers might find helpful when considering status questions.