April 2009 Archives - Employment Law Advocates

Christmas and New Year Office Closure

01-Dec-2011 / Employment Law Advocates / Comments Off

Our office will be closing for the holiday period at 12.00pm on Friday 23rd December 2011 and will reopen again until 10.00am on Tuesday 3rd January 2012. Advocates will be mostly unavailable but may have intermittent access to email or telephone during this period. If you are an existing client, please contact your Advocate directly by email or telephone. If you are a new client or are seeking advice, please email info@employmentlawadvocates.com or complete the enquiry form on our Contact Us page ...

Read & Comment

Costs in discrimination cases

30-Apr-2009 / James Medhurst / 3 Comments

The case of Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew¬†is a very¬†unusual one in that the Employment Appeal Tribunal interfered with the decision of the tribunal below not to award costs. In his reasons, Justice Wilkie is careful to emphasise that the case does not raise any issue of legal principle but it is difficult to see how it can avoid doing so, in light of¬†the¬†conclusion that a deliberate and cynical lie amounts to unreasonable conduct necessitating an award of costs. On¬†its ...

Read & Comment

Dark law

22-Apr-2009 / James Medhurst / No Comments

As the appellate courts have been quiet over the last few days, I would like¬†to take the opportunity to write about the concept of "dark law". Just as many physicists believe that a large proportion of the universe consists of an undetectable but weighty substance, it is well known to legal practitioners that there are many principles¬†which are applied by courts and tribunals almost as second nature but¬†that never find their way into reported case law. There are several problems with ...

Read & Comment

Calculating compensation

13-Apr-2009 / James Medhurst / No Comments

There has been a long-running dispute in the civil courts as to whether compensation for a breach of contract or a tort should be calculated from facts known at the date the wrong was committed (based on the idea that it should be foreseeable) or if information discovered subsequently can be taken into account. In what has become known as the Bwllfa principle, the House of Lords has confirmed in a series of decisions that the latter is to be ...

Read & Comment

Unless orders

09-Apr-2009 / James Medhurst / No Comments

Unless orders were introduced by the 2004 Employment Tribunal Rules in order to allow tribunals to strike out parties without a¬†finding that a fair trial is no longer possible. However, they must still exercise their discretion judicially.¬†EPI Coaches v Lafferty¬†confirms that the merits of the case¬†is one of the factors to be considered. It is also an¬†important reminder that,¬†where a respondent is struck out, it does not follow that the claimant will automatically succeed. The tribunal must nevertheless make findings ...

Read & Comment

RIP DDP

06-Apr-2009 / James Medhurst / No Comments

Today, both the statutory disciplinary dismissal procedure and the¬†statutory grievance procedure ceased to exist, subject to some very messy transitional provisions. It is hoped this will achieve two things, firstly that employers and employees will no longer¬†suffer draconian consequences for non-compliance and, secondly, that there will be less litigation¬†about the meaning of the terms in the procedures. The former has been achieved but it is doubtful whether the same can be said of the latter. The ACAS Code of Practice ...

Read & Comment

Employment Law Advocates