header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins

240108
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

The court held that Stonewall’s actions were not a sufficient legal cause of Garden Court Chambers’ investigation, reinforcing a cautious approach to causation and ‘novus actus interveniens’.

Smith also examines practical lessons from the Employment Appeal Tribunal on extending notice by agreement, the need to consider all available evidence before dismissal for incapability, and the strict contractual meaning of ‘employer’ in collective redundancy law.

The unifying theme is precision: timing, evidence and statutory context matter. For employers and advisers, these cases underline how easily procedural missteps can tip the balance from lawful management to unfair dismissal. 

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