Ian Smith plays by the rules…& ends the year with a twist
The three cases chosen this month for comment all concern fundamental points of interpretation or application in their particular areas.
The first is a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on the meaning of a “disclosure” in the rules on whistleblowing, the result being some relief to employers who may have been under the (apprehensive) apprehension that these days (to misquote a conservative opposition member under Attlee’s post-war government) “we are all whistleblowers now”.
The second case is an important statement by the Court of Appeal on the application of rules of causation in a discrimination case on remedies, focusing on the venerable problem (in cases of discriminatory dismissals) of stigma in future job applications.
The third is a complex but typically erudite decision of Underhill P in the EAT on the question of the legality of pay protection schemes, but with the twist that this time it arose in the context of age discrimination, not sex discrimination.
Whistleblowing
Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2009] UKEAT/195/09, [2009] All
