header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 5 March 2020

05 March 2020 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7877 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
16955
Ian Smith tackles another fine mess or two, including Laurel & Hardy in the Employment Appeal Tribunal
  • The policy against multiple contemporaneous employers outside tort cases.
  • Illegal conduct later rectified—the effect?
  • Fair dismissal on suspicion, not reasonable belief

Can an employee have more than one employer for one employment? What happens if an illegal contract is later performed legally? When can an employer dismiss on mere suspicion? These questions are raised in this Brief, but there is a fourth and even more fundamental question—why have James Corden and Laurel and Hardy been in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)? Read on, gentle reader, read on.

In Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Ltd UKEAT/0286/19 the claimant was an optician working through the well-known high street optician. When his work was terminated, he brought ET proceedings inter alia for unfair dismissal, but his claim went wrong procedurally, in such a way that he was ultimately forced back on to an argument that he had been employed by two companies contemporaneously, which Judge Stacey in the EAT held is in general impossible

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll