header-logo header-logo

11 November 2016
Issue: 7722 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

Bailey v Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP UKEAT/0025/16/RN, [2016] All ER (D) 204 (Jun)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer’s appeal and the employee’s cross-appeal, in part, in respect of a claim for constructive unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination, ruled on the admissibility of evidence in employment tribunal (the tribunal) proceedings. It held, among other things, that the tribunal had erred it its approach to the principle of admissibility in respect of without prejudice negotiations by wrongly eliding the approach to s 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with that of without prejudice privilege. Section 111A of the Act had to be read on its own terms and did not import the case law underpinning common law without prejudice privilege.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll