Employment Appeal Tribunal ("The EAT"), in allowing an appeal in the case of ICTS UK Ltd v Mahdi and others, has held that subsequent events may be relevant in assessing the client’s intention as to whether or not a task was intended to be of “short-term duration”. 

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights last week appeared to answer a difficult question for employers, namely are they able to snoop on their employees' electronic communications to check they are complying with their email / electronic communications policies? In that case, the answer had been “yes”, because a fair balance had been struck between the employee's right to respect for his private life on the one hand, and his employer's interests, such as to check for potential damage to their IT systems, illicit activity in the company's name or the leaking of company secrets, on the other.

The recent High Court decision in Patural v DB Services (UK) Ltd is an illustration of the principles on which the courts will examine an employer’s exercise of their discretion in awarding bonuses.  The employee’s claim that his employer had exercised this discretion improperly in awarding him a smaller bonus than his colleagues was dismissed without proceeding to full trial.

The prospect of a Brexit can no longer be ignored. David Cameron is currently planning to seek reform of the EU and an in/out referendum is to be put to the UK by the end of 2017. Some reports suggest that previous strength of business opposition to a Brexit is waning. Alongside sections of strong euro-scepticism within the public, it seems inevitable that employers and employees must begin to think about potential changes to UK employment law and what any such changes could mean for them.

In the case of Cooper Contracting Ltd v Lindsey, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the “EAT”) dismissed an appeal challenging the compensation awarded to a former employee following a successful unfair dismissal claim. When considering this appeal, the EAT set out a number of important principles that should be considered when deciding whether or not a former employee has properly mitigated their loss.