Employment and discrimination Articles

Colin McDevitt analyses Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Limited EA-2020-000357-JOJ, a case which emphasises the rare nature of the Jhuti exception when considering an invented reason for an automatically unfair dismissal following the making of a protected disclosure.

Stephen Wyeth reviews Abbeyfield (Maidenhead) Society v Hart UKEAT/0016/21, a case which provides a useful indication of the high threshold that must be overcome to set aside the important and cherished principle that communications between advisers about contemplated litigation should remain confidential.

Katherine Anderson analyses The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Professor Paul Ewart EA-2020-000128-RN, which highlights that proportionality assessment means it is possible for different ETs to reach different conclusions when considering the same measure adopted by the same employer in respect of the same aims.

Andrew MacPhail analyses the CoA's decision in Gwynedd Council v S Barratt & I Hughes [2021] EWCA Civ 1322, which provides a reminder to employers to take particular care before declining to follow best practice on key matters such as consultation on redundancy and the provision of an appeal process, even if it considers that such steps would be futile.

Katherine Anderson examines Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources Ltd [2021] EWHC 2418 (QB), the latest in a line of claims where an employee whose claim is compromised in the ET, finds it is then struck out in civil proceedings for abuse of the court’s process.

Sarah Clarke reviews Aleem v E-Act Academy Trust Ltd UKEAT/0100/20/RN, a case which reminds us that the purpose of the duty to make reasonable adjustments is to assist an employee remaining in employment or returning to work after a period of absence. If an employer does decide to maintain a salary whilst investigating the way forward, it is imperative that it is made clear to the individual that this is only a temporary measure.

Katherine Anderson analyses the Court of Session's decision in L v K [2021] CSIH 35, a case involving a scenario which practitioners may have encountered before among employers concerned with the safeguarding of children.

Grace Nicholls reviews the decision of the EAT in Seecombe v Reed In Partnership UKEAT/0213/20/OO, which restates many of the key principles and authorities to consider when seeking to establish or challenge disability status. The case also demonstrates that disputes about disability status are very difficult to overturn, given the fact sensitive nature of decisions.

Katherine Anderson considers Mrs A Martin v City and County of Swansea: EA-2020-000460-AT (Previously UKEAT/0253/20/AT), a case which confirms the importance of properly identifying PCPs in reasonable adjustments claims, whilst deterring respondents’ lawyers from taking overly technical points on pleading.

Janet Kerr v Fife Council UKEATS/0022/20/SH

Employment law barrister Karen Moss summarises the Scottish EAT’s consideration of acts, omissions and conduct extending over a period, for the purposes of calculating time in the reasonable adjustments case of Janet Kerr v Fife Council UKEATS/0022/20/SH.

University Hospital of North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust v Ms L Fairhall [2021] 6 WLUK 454

Grace Boorer reviews University Hospital of North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust v Ms L Fairhall [2021] 6 WLUK 454, a case providing a timely reminder to practitioners that in most cases it is not necessary to complicate whistleblowing determinations, notwithstanding the decision in Jhuti.

Ms M Driscoll (Nee Cobbing) v (1) V & P Global Ltd (2) Mr F Varela (EA-2020-000876-LA; EA-2020-000877-LA)

Craig Ludlow analyses the EAT’s decision in Ms M Driscoll (Nee Cobbing) v (1) V & P Global Ltd (2) Mr F Varela (EA-2020-000876-LA; EA-2020-000877-LA) and its likely implications on the number of harassment claims connected to constructive dismissal claims.