February 2010 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

Buckland judgment

24-Feb-2010 / James Medhurst / No Comments

The decision of the Court of Appeal can be found here. The reasoning on the 'curing the breach' point¬†is pretty much as¬†argued in the appeal,¬†which is¬†set¬†out in my previous post. On the 'reasonable range of responses' point, the approach of the Employment Appeal Tribunal¬†has¬†largely been¬†upheld, but with¬†a caveat, per Lord Justice Sedley,¬†that, "It is nevertheless arguable, I would accept, that reasonableness is one of the tools in the employment tribunal's factual analysis kit for deciding whether there has been a ...

Read & Comment

Buckland update

13-Feb-2010 / James Medhurst / No Comments

I went to the Court of Appeal on Monday¬†and I heard some fascinating arguments. It seems that the question of whether trust and confidence can be restored¬†after being destroyed¬†could¬†become moot¬†as, according to Robin White,¬†for Professor Buckland, there is no authority for the more general proposition that a repudiatory breach of contract can be cured by the wrongdoer, as opposed to being affirmed by the wronged party. The authorities cited by Employment Appeal Tribunal apparently say no more than that¬†an anticipatory ...

Read & Comment

Indirect discrimination

/ James Medhurst / No Comments

The case of Eweida v British Airways concerns a Christian woman who was disciplined by her employer for wearing a cross, contrary to its dress code. Her claim has been rejected for the third time, this time by the Court of Appeal. The main point in the appeal is the suggestion by Karon Monaghan QC that a policy can give rise to indirect discrimination even if there is only one person put at a disadvantage as a result. Given the ...

Read & Comment

Countdown to Buckland – 1 day to go

07-Feb-2010 / James Medhurst / No Comments

I can confirm that Buckland¬†will be heard at the Court of Appeal tomorrow. Interestingly, there is also a permissions hearing for a cross-appeal by the university so it looks as though the range of reasonable responses point¬†willhave to be considered to some extent although, it has to be said, Fairbrother does not appear to be particularly helpful on the facts of this case. There is¬†an enormous¬†difference between remedying a flawed¬†process with an¬†appeal and trying to remedy a¬†breach¬†of trust with a ...

Read & Comment

Countdown to Buckland – 5 days to go

03-Feb-2010 / James Medhurst / No Comments

It is now time to talk about the range of reasonable responses, a frequently misunderstood concept. As the Court of Appeal made¬†extremely clear in HSBC v Madden,¬†"there will be cases where there is room for reasonable disagreement among reasonable employers as to whether dismissal for the particular misconduct is a reasonable or an unreasonable response."¬†To put it¬†another way, the word¬†'reasonable' means the same as within the range of reasonable responses, which¬†is not a gloss on the literal reading of the ...

Read & Comment

Employment Law Advocates