The Supreme Court has quashed the employment tribunal fees order (SI 2013/1893) because it has the effect of preventing access to justice. It is unlawful under both domestic and EU law.

The judgment is available here.

Employment law practitioners will find much to agree with in the judgment. It will also be of interest to constitutional scholars on account of its exposition of the constitutional right of access to the courts as a right inherent in the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s conclusions were based in the first instance on the common law.

This blog now simply sets out selected highlights from the judgment. Read more »

It is established law that (1) the doctrine of mitigation of loss by way of avoided loss applies to claims for damages for breach of contract by way of wrongful dismissal from employment, (2) this means that there must be deducted amounts that the employee earned or should have earned in substituted alternative employment, and (3) such amounts are capable of encompassing benefits in kind, but (4) this is subject to the important qualification that the benefit must not be too remote. Read more »

It used to be thought that in exercising a contractual discretion accorded to it, in relation for example to a bonus or a share plan, an employer could, so long as it addressed the matter honestly and genuinely, make subjective qualitative judgments which would only be reviewable if they were perverse or illogical.
Braganza appears to have changed this.  The decisions since Braganza appear to show an intensification of the scrutiny given to the employer’s decision making process. Read more »

Employment Law Set of the Year
Chambers & Partners and Legal 500

Please join us at our annual Employment Law Conference on 8th May 2017 in London or 7th June 2017 in Leeds.

Specialist barristers from 11KBW – the leading chambers for all aspects of Employment Law – will provide updates and insights on key areas of the law including whistleblowing, modern slavery and equal pay and benefits.  The day starts with three sessions focussing on areas of particular interest to commercial employment practitioners, and ends with a panel discussion on the sensitive and topical issue of  religious discrimination and religious neutrality.

This year we are delighted to have Sir Patrick Elias, recently retired Lord Justice of Appeal and founding member of 11KBW, deliver our keynote address in London. Read more »

In Kellogg Brown & Root (UK) Ltd v Fitton, 0206/16, the EAT revisits the interface between redundancy situations and mobility clauses.  Two principles are reaffirmed and applied.  The first, confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Home Office v Evans   ICR 302, is that an employer is lawfully entitled to invoke an express contractual mobility clause; and avoid liability for a statutory redundancy payment, notwithstanding that a redundancy situation has arisen or might arise on the closure of part of a business.  The second is that if an employee refuses to relocate and the employer dismisses the employee the employer can rely on that refusal to obey a lawful instruction as misconduct, but the ET must then go on to consider the question of fairness, ie whether the employer has acted reasonably in giving the instruction and whether the employee had acted reasonably in refusing to comply with that instruction.

We are delighted to have won Employment Law Set of the Year at last night’s Chambers Bar Awards. Earlier this week we were also awarded Employment Law Set of the Year at the Legal 500 UK Awards 2017.

We are delighted to announce that Chambers has received 3 nominations in this year’s Chambers and Partners Bar Awards; Anya Proops QC has been nominated for Defamation Silk of the Year; Jane McCafferty for Employment Law Junior of the Year; and Chambers for Employment Law Set of the Year.

The awards take place at The London Hilton on Park Lane on Thursday, 27th October 2016. A full list of nominations can be viewed here.

A v B Local Authority and C Governing Body of School [2016] EWCA Civ 766 is concerned with whether an ET had been entitled to find that a Head Teacher of a primary school had been fairly summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, i.e. putting the safety of children at risk, for failing to disclose to the school authorities her close personal relationship with a male (IS) convicted of making indecent images of children by downloading them onto his computer. The ET’s finding was upheld by the EAT (Wilkie J presiding) and has now been upheld by a majority in the Court of Appeal (Black and Floyd LJJ).  Elias LJ dissented.

Read more »