header-logo header-logo

28 October 2015 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7674 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 28 October 2015

web_smitht

Ian Smith reviews some interesting contrasts in recent employment case law

 

Rather unusually, the case law in the last month contained three sets of, in effect, paired cases which provide interesting contrasts. The first pair concerned the concept of the “service provision change” (SPC) in TUPE law, the second the perpetual problem of where to draw the line on the territorial jurisdiction of British employment tribunals and the third the difficult area of discrimination arising from disability.

Service provision changes—the problem

Much of the case law on whether an individual was or was not “assigned” to the organised grouping of employees that is subject to an SPC has concerned current, active employees, and the question whether they were sufficiently connected to the (part of) undertaking being transferred. However, two contemporaneous cases recently concerned a wholly different problem, namely where there is clearly a SPC and the organised grouping is equally clear, but the twist is that the employee in question was not actually working on the task in question immediately before the transfer, in BT Managed Services Ltd v Edwards

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