Blog

Christmas parties – How far does employer liability extend?

In the recent case of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, the Supreme Court broadened the scope of the employee acts for which employers can be held vicariously liable. However, the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd provides a useful reminder that liability does not extend beyond work-related activities. In the Bellman case, the High Court considered the question of whether an employer was vicariously liable for an assault that took place at a gathering which followed the work

Read Full Article Here »

12th December 2016

Indirect Sex Discrimination in relation to flexible working requests

The case of XC Trains LTd v CD and ASLEF concerned “indirect discrimination.” Indirect discrimination is where: A non-discriminatory requirement (“Provision, criterion or Practice” or PCP) has a disproportionately adverse effect on people with a protected characteristic which puts them at a particular disadvantage as compared with people without that protected characteristic; and The Employer cannot show that that PCP is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. [Ref: s19, Equality Act 2010] The Claimant was a female train

Read Full Article Here »

21st November 2016

Are you status conscious?

Self-employed, worker, employee, the status of individual’s and their respective rights, has often been a cause for confusion and debate, whether considering the appropriate procedures to follow or if companies are liable for income tax and national insurance contributions. The recent case considered within the London Employment Tribunal put forward by two Uber drivers, argued that due to the levels of control maintained by Uber, drivers are not self-employed but ‘workers’. The drivers have won this round, with the result being dubbed

Read Full Article Here »

28th October 2016

The dilemma of upholding a complaint of bullying or discrimination in the context of a grievance

The sixty-four-thousand-dollar question: How does an employer uphold a complaint of bullying or discrimination without risking further exposure to a related Employment Tribunal claim? As is invariably the case in respect of grievances that include complaints of bullying, harassment and discrimination, the employer is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea in this regard. Should it try desperately not to make any admissions for fear of providing further evidence in support of the employee’s allegations and thereby facilitating

Read Full Article Here »

23rd September 2016

Restrictive Covenants – High Court decision provides further guidance on enforceability

Employers seeking to protect their business in the event of a key employee leaving who may be able to take customers with them will normally include restrictive covenants in employment contracts in order to reduce the scope for this occurring. Such restrictions will be considered void in law as being “in restraint of trade” unless they protect a legitimate interest and are deemed reasonable in the circumstances. The protection of a legitimate interest usually applies where employees either have access

Read Full Article Here »

5th September 2016

Government investigates contractual non-compete clauses

As part of the Government’s pledge to make Britain the best place in Europe to innovate and start up a new business, Business Secretary Sajid Javid has announced plans by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills to look into restrictive covenants following suggestions (from whom exactly, we don’t know at this stage!) that they could be hindering start-up businesses from hiring the best and brightest talent. The theory put forward is that contractual non-compete clauses (which can prevent individuals

Read Full Article Here »

6th May 2016

Reasonable restrictive covenants deemed enforceable

In Croesus Financial Services v Bradshaw Restrictive, the High Court held that covenants prohibiting an ex-employee from soliciting or dealing with his former employer’s customers for a year post-termination were not an unreasonable restraint of trade. On the facts, the Court was satisfied that the 12-month non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants did not extend any further than was reasonably necessary in order to protect the employer’s business. The Defendants argued that the restrictions were excessive and therefore unenforceable because they applied

Read Full Article Here »

3rd December 2013

Case revisits the question of when to suspend

A recent Court of Appeal case revisits the responsibility placed on employers to ensure that suspension is appropriate in the circumstances, and again warns against knee jerk reactions in this regard. In cases of alleged gross misconduct, employers generally suspend as a matter of course. However, in Crawford v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, the Trust’s decision to suspend was criticised as being heavy handed in the circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the allegations – which related to the

Read Full Article Here »

28th February 2012