January 2010 Archives - 2/2 - Employment Law Advocates

Damages-Based Agreement Regulations

10-Jan-2010 / James Medhurst / No Comments

The government recently published draft regulations aimed at restricting the use of damages-based contingency fee agreements in which the representative receives a proportion of the damages awarded to the client. They are unlawful in the United Kingdom (although not in the United States of America)¬†for court proceedings but are quite common in Employment Tribunal proceedings, as a reflection the fact that awards are usually relatively small and clients rarely recover their legal costs. Few people question that some regulation of ...

Read & Comment

Countdown to Buckland – 32 days to go

07-Jan-2010 / James Medhurst / No Comments

I made quite a number of posts last year about the case of Bournemouth University v Buckland at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I¬†am not a fan of the decision which, among other things, says that it is wrong to introduce a range of reasonable responses test into the question of whether there has been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. This conclusion¬†has found favour in some quarters but Judge Peter Clark also makes two more controversial ...

Read & Comment

Claim forms

04-Jan-2010 / James Medhurst / No Comments

The decision of the Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunal in Young v Hexion Speciality Chemicals deals with a short but important point. A claim for unfair dismissal had been submitted in which the date of termination of the employment had been provided but not¬†the start date. It was rejected on the basis that it could not be determined whether the claimant had sufficient service to bring¬†a claim. He applied for a review, supplying his start date,¬†but¬†it¬†was not allowed. As the Lady ...

Read & Comment

Unreported Case of the Year 2009

01-Jan-2010 / James Medhurst / No Comments

Happy New Year everyone. For my¬†first¬†post of 2010, I would like¬†to¬†make my selection for the most important unreported case of last year. There are always significant cases that slip under the radar of the law reporters, especially¬†if their practical usefulness outweighs their academic interest or where novel points arise¬†about an issue peripheral to the main case. Chondol v Liverpool City Council qualifies on both counts. It generated a frisson of excitement in the media because it is yet another case¬†that ...

Read & Comment