Blog
From Certificates to Belief Statements: The CPS and the Limits of Forum Bar Intervention
Rebecca Niblock
30 March 2015
“Dirty Leeds” email lands executive in big trouble
The case of Williams v Leeds United Football Club highlights that in principle there is no limit on the length of time that can pass between an employee’s gross misconduct and their dismissal without notice, if in the interim period the employer was unaware of the employee’s wrongdoing.
11 March 2015
Legal update: New compensation limits confirmed
It may not be the juiciest of employment law topics, but it certainly is something we all need to know – what are the current compensation limits in respect of claims which an employee can bring against his or her employer?
11 March 2015
Legal update: Beware! An exchange of emails could constitute a binding settlement
Bieber and others v Teathers Limited
In Bieber and others v Teathers Limited, the parties’ respective solicitors agreed a figure for settlement of a claim, by email, without either side expressing that the correspondence was “subject to contract”.
11 March 2015
Legal update: Reason for dismissal – clarity is vital
Robinson v Combat Stress
The case of Robinson v Combat Stress shows the need for an employer, when it dismisses an employee as a result of a number of separate incidents, to be entirely clear about the reason for the dismissal.
11 March 2015
Legal update: What constitutes a reasonable adjustment for a service provider to make to avoid disadvantaging a disabled person?
First Group plc v Doug Paulley
The Court of Appeal held that in order to answer this question, rather than focusing on the existing policy which is being challenged (as many legal advisers do) (i.e. in this case asking, but not compelling non-wheelchair users to vacate the wheelchair space on a bus), instead the correct legal approach is to identify the base position or raw policy, with any adjustments that have already been made to the policy to accommodate disabled persons being stripped out. The base policy which should have been challenged in this case by Mr Paulley should have been First Group’s “first come first served” policy with regards to use of the wheelchair space on its buses.