<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Employment Law Advocates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com</link>
	<description>Hamilton House, 1 Temple Avenue, London, EC4Y 0HA</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:39:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Dividing up hearings</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dividing-up-hearings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dividing-up-hearings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3536</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is common practice for tribunals to rule on liability first and then to determine remedy later. In my experience, this can often be more trouble than it is worth, especially in short unfair dismissal cases, particularly where the issues of a Polkey reduction or of contributory fault are likely to come into play. This was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dividing-up-hearings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reasons for less favourable treatment</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/reasons-for-less-favourable-treatment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/reasons-for-less-favourable-treatment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:38:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3513</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If the burden of proof reverses in a discrimination case, the employer has to show a non-discriminatory reason for the treatment about which the complaint has been made. Sometimes this is straightforward but the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust provides an example of a situation where it can be more difficult. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/reasons-for-less-favourable-treatment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buckland judgment</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-judgment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-judgment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:07:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision of the Court of Appeal can be found here. The reasoning on the &#8216;curing the breach&#8217; point is pretty much as argued in the appeal, which is set out in my previous post. On the &#8216;reasonable range of responses&#8217; point, the approach of the Employment Appeal Tribunal has largely been upheld, but with a caveat, per Lord Justice Sedley, that, &#8220;It is nevertheless [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-judgment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buckland update</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-update/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Countdown to Buckland - 1 day to go</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-1-day-to-go/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-1-day-to-go/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-1-day-to-go/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Countdown to Buckland - 5 days to go</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-5-days-to-go/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-5-days-to-go/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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, &#8221;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.&#8221; To [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-5-days-to-go/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Church and the Equality Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-church-and-the-equality-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-church-and-the-equality-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:26:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3270</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It has been reported that the House of Lords has defeated several government amendments narrowing the exemption from sexual orientation discrimination currently allowed to religious organisations. This is slightly misleading because one form of the wording rejected appears in the original draft of the bill and the only amendment since was at the request of church leaders, to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-church-and-the-equality-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Countdown to Buckland - 15 days to go</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-15-days-to-go/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-15-days-to-go/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Buckland, Judge Clark sets out a four stage test. Firstly, is there a breach of trust and confidence? Secondly, does acceptance of that breach entitle an employee to resign, using the authority of Sharp v Western Excavating? Thirdly, is the dismissal for a potentially fair reason? Fourthly, is the dismissal fair? I want to concentrate on the second stage and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-15-days-to-go/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Continuing acts</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/continuing-acts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/continuing-acts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:58:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Allen v Jobcentre Plus raises an interesting question. It is common practice for tribunals, when dealing with a point of whether there is a continuing act which brings claims that would otherwise be out of time within their jurisdiction, to reserve the matter to the final hearing without a pre-hearing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/continuing-acts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Countdown to Buckland - 23 days to go</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-23-days-to-go/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-23-days-to-go/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To start my review of constructive dismissal law, I must deal with a point of which, in my opinion, far too much has been made. In the only House of Lords decision in this area, Malik v BCCI, Lord Steyn appears to state that the test of whether there is a breach of the implied term of trust [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-23-days-to-go/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Damages-Based Agreement Regulations</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/damages-based-agreement-regulations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/damages-based-agreement-regulations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:26:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/damages-based-agreement-regulations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Countdown to Buckland - 32 days to go</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-32-days-to-go/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-32-days-to-go/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:31:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/countdown-to-buckland-32-days-to-go/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Claim forms</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/claim-forms/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/claim-forms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/claim-forms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unreported Case of the Year 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unreported-case-of-the-year-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unreported-case-of-the-year-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=3023</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unreported-case-of-the-year-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark Law - The Reason Why Part 2</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-the-reason-why-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-the-reason-why-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my last dark law post, I discussed the scepticism of tribunals regarding discrimination claims about acts which do not appear to be discriminatory on their face. It might be thought that the situation would have changed since it has become possible for the burden of proof to be reversed but, in fact, this has not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-the-reason-why-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Territorial jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/territorial-jurisdiction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/territorial-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal dealt with some complicated issues of European law in Duncombe v Department for Children, Schools and Families. It was not a good week for the Department, which also intervened unsuccessfully in JFS. Mr. Duncombe was employed to teach at a European School in Germany but was dismissed when his fixed-term contract came to an end after nine years, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/territorial-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JFS</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/jfs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/jfs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The judgment of the Supreme Court in this case has been all over the newspapers. I went to see it being handed down yesterday and I was pleased both that the carpet looks much better in real life than in photographs and with the decision itself, in which thirty years of direct discrimination law narrowly avoided being overturned, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/jfs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Compromise agreements</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/compromise-agreements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/compromise-agreements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2729</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An employment tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear a claim if it has been subject to an agreement which complies with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act, or with a similar provision in another statute. It does have the power to determine whether an agreement properly complies with the terms of the section but it had [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/compromise-agreements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark Law - The Reason Why Part 1</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-the-reason-why-part-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-the-reason-why-part-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The single most common mistake made by inexperienced advocates and litigants in person in the Employment Tribunal is to assume that it is easy to demonstrate that an negative act by an employer was done on discriminatory grounds. For example, many think that evidence of having been bullied is sufficient even where there is no basis for suggesting that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-the-reason-why-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stereotypes</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/stereotypes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/stereotypes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Consider the followings two scenarios: a black person claims race discrimination on the grounds that she has wrongly been assumed to be mentally ill; and a white person claims race discrimination on the grounds that she has wrongly been assumed to be mentally ill. Even without knowing any of the facts, the first case seems [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/stereotypes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Religious discrimination</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/religious-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/religious-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in McFarlane v Relate Avon is another in a long line of authorities in which discrimination on the grounds of religion and sexual orientation have appeared to come into conflict. In such cases, there is often unhelpful talk about one set of rights &#8216;trumping&#8217; another but this just misses the point. In McFarlane, Justice [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/religious-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Penalty clauses</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/penalty-clauses/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/penalty-clauses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:26:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2503</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Yorkshire Maintenance Company v Farr concerned penalty clauses in employment contracts, an area of law in which there are surprisingly few authorities. The respondent had attempted to rely upon a clause stating that wages could be deducted in the event that timesheets were not signed by the client. The tribunal did not accept this, not expressly [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/penalty-clauses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade union detriment</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/trade-union-detriment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/trade-union-detriment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An article in the Guardian reports on a fascinating case which began at the Manchester Employment Tribunal earlier in the week. It represents part of the fallout from the construction industry blacklist which I discussed in this post. Now many of the people affected (twenty three of them) have brought claims against the companies who put their names on the list in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/trade-union-detriment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reasonable adjustments</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/reasonable-adjustments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/reasonable-adjustments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal decision in Royal Bank of Scotland v Allen concerns the provision of goods and services under the Disability Discrimination Act. The case turned largely on its facts and was decided using the existing authorities about the meaning of a &#8216;reasonable alternative method&#8217; of providing the service. However, there was one point which could later become relevant in an employment [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/reasonable-adjustments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Causation?</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/causation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/causation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2333</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision in Orr v Milton Keynes Council gets to the heart of a very difficult area of discrimination law, usually described as causation, but this is itself a problematic term, as the case demonstrates. The claimant suffered harassment for which his employer was vicariously liable, but was dismissed fairly for his rude and abusive response to it. It was held that the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/causation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tapere reported</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tapere-reported/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tapere-reported/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was delighted to discover last week that a case I conducted, Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, which I discussed in this post, has been reported in the Industrial Relations Law Reports at [2009] IRLR 972. It was analysed by Michael Rubenstein in his &#8216;Highlights&#8217; section but I must admit that I found his reasoning rather odd.  He said, &#8216;However laudable [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tapere-reported/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Disability discrimination in chaos (again)</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/disability-discrimination-in-chaos-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/disability-discrimination-in-chaos-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:33:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since Malcolm, the issue of knowledge of a disability has gained a great deal of importance because it is a requirement for a successful claim for a failure to make reasonable adjustments, which is now the most important head of claim. It has also become a requirement for disability-related discrimination in the unlikely event that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/disability-discrimination-in-chaos-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Grainger v Nicholson</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/grainger-v-nicholson/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/grainger-v-nicholson/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judgment has now also been given by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in this case, further to my earlier discussion of the submissions here. The outcome, that a passionate belief in climate change, accompanied by a moral imperative to do something about it, is capable of constituting a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Religion or Belief Regulations, is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/grainger-v-nicholson/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oakland v Wellswood</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/oakland-v-wellswood/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/oakland-v-wellswood/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal judgment, which I first discussed in this post, has now been made available online.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/oakland-v-wellswood/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Direct discrimination</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/direct-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/direct-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the Court of Appeal gave judgment in R (on the application of E) v The Governing Body of JFS, it was suggested to me that this might be a good topic for the blog. I did not take the opportunity to write about it then because it seemed to me that, like the vast majority of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/direct-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Application of grievance procedures</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/application-of-grievance-procedures/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/application-of-grievance-procedures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2088</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Judge Peter Clark in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in Allen v Murdoch, the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures apply to claims for redundancy payments and for pay in lieu of accrued holiday arising on termination and, therefore, there is no need for a grievance to be raised in respect of these matters. This [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/application-of-grievance-procedures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The BNP and the Race Relations Act</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-bnp-and-the-race-relations-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-bnp-and-the-race-relations-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2025</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the week where everyone is talking about the BNP. The appearance by Nick Griffin on Question Time yesterday came shortly after he finally conceded the need to change a constitution which restricts membership on racial grounds. Frustratingly, the media coverage has not analysed the relevant law which is not as straightforward as it seems and so it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-bnp-and-the-race-relations-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employment status</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/employment-status/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/employment-status/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1971</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Autoclenz v Belcher is the last in a long series which caused a lot of confusion but resulted in the law being in much the same position it was in when the confusion began. The story starts with the case of Consistent Group v Kalwak in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in May 2007, in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/employment-status/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exemplary damages</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/exemplary-damages/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/exemplary-damages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1903</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Ministry of Defence v Fletcher got a great deal of media attention at first instance (see for example here), mainly because the claimant was a female soldier who was awarded £186,895.52 for sexual harassment and victimisation. Of this, £100,000 represented injury to feelings, including £30,000 for the upper band of Vento adjusted for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/exemplary-damages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Religious belief</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/religious-belief/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/religious-belief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:08:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I had the pleasure of attending the Employment Appeal Tribunal as an observer yesterday in the case of Grainger v Nicholson, which I previously discussed here. As a result, I am now much less confident of the views which I had then. John Bowers QC, for the appellant employer, argued that the definition of a religious or [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/religious-belief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TUPE and insolvency</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tupe-and-insolvency/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tupe-and-insolvency/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There has been an interesting recent judgment from the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Oakland v Wellswood (the link is to the now overruled judgment). The case is unusual because the insolvency issue did not arise in the context of an employee who had been made redundant immediately afterwards but [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tupe-and-insolvency/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Third party pressure</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/third-party-pressure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/third-party-pressure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:17:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1796</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Employment Appeal Tribunal case of Henderson v Connect (South Tyneside) is not very likely to be reported as there is not much new law in it. However, it is a nice example of a judgment which provides a useful survey of the existing authorities, in an area in which many of them are quite old and not all of them [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/third-party-pressure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Even more Malcolm</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/even-more-malcolm/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/even-more-malcolm/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:40:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Eagle Place Services v Rudd had an unusual outcome in that the tribunal found direct disability discrimination but not disability-related discrimination. Both sides were not happy with the outcome, with the employer challenging the former finding and the employee challenging the latter. It was the cross-appeal which succeeded, with the effect that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/even-more-malcolm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aegon v Roberts</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/aegon-v-roberts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/aegon-v-roberts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Further to this post, I can report that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in this case is now available.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/aegon-v-roberts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law - Barack Obama special</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-barack-obama-special/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-barack-obama-special/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Barack Obama appeared US television this week on the Late Show with David Letterman. This followed accusations by his predecessor Jimmy Carter that criticism of his policies about healthcare reform were motivated by racism. When asked about this, Obama observed that, &#8220;I was black before the election.&#8221;
A simiar problem can arise in employment tribunal cases, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-barack-obama-special/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The ECJ and holiday pay</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-ecj-and-holiday-pay/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-ecj-and-holiday-pay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There has already been a great deal of discussion about the decision of the European Court of Justice in Pereda v Madrid Movilidad, in which it was held that workers who become sick while on holiday can reclaim their supposedly lost annual leave to be taken at a later date. Not surprisingly, much of the commentary has focused [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-ecj-and-holiday-pay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Employment Law Years - 1985</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-employment-law-years-1985/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-employment-law-years-1985/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, I am travelling in my DeLorean back to the year 1985, when Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union, Boris Becker won Wimbledon as an unseeded 17-year-old, and the mobile phone was introduced into the UK by a tiny company called Racal-Vodaphone. Number one singles included &#8216;Nineteen&#8217; by Paul Hardcastle, &#8216;The Power of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-employment-law-years-1985/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stuart Peters v Bell</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/stuart-peters-v-bell/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/stuart-peters-v-bell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1653</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While I am on the subject of decisions on remedy which are upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal but overturned by the Court of Appeal, another example was first mentioned in this post. I am pleased to report that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Stuart Peters v Bell has now been produced. Lord [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/stuart-peters-v-bell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pension Loss</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/pension-loss/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/pension-loss/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:31:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was an interesting decision by the Court of Appeal a few weeks ago, concerning compensation for unfair dismissal. Unfortunately, the judgment has yet to appear but the key background reading in any event is the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment in Aegon v Roberts, earlier in the year, which it overturned. The facts are unremarkable but the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/pension-loss/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wrong jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/wrong-jurisdiction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/wrong-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:37:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1613</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There have been very few new decisions recently but there was another case on time limits that caught my eye, McFadyen v PB Recovery, which is a reminder that employment tribunals in Scotland are a separate jurisdiction from those in England and Wales. Usually this makes no difference because the law is identical to the point that decisions of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/wrong-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Effective date of termination</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/effective-date-of-termination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/effective-date-of-termination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:33:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Gisda Cyf v Barratt concerns the thorny issue which arises when a dismissal letter is sent to an employee but is not read until several days later. A well-established principle was set down by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Brown v Southall &#38; Knight, as long ago as 1980, but it came [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/effective-date-of-termination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law - amendments</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-amendments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-amendments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1547</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The approach of tribunals towards amendments is increasingly liberal, especially if no new facts are pleaded. However, a difficulty remains in situations where an amendment is requested at the hearing itself. It is particularly prejudicial for a respondent to be faced with an allegation for which it has not prepared but, conversely, justice demands that a claim [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-amendments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Riam Dean judgment</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/riam-dean-judgment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/riam-dean-judgment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am delighted to announce something of an exclusive for the Employment Law Advocates blog. Please click here to read the written reasons of the most famous (or rather infamous for Abercrombie &#38; Fitch) employment tribunal case of the year. I would like to thank May Dean for providing me with a copy.
There is one finding of fact which is not strictly [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/riam-dean-judgment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TUPE and mobility clauses</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tupe-and-mobility-clauses/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tupe-and-mobility-clauses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1402</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As promised, a summary of my recent appearance at the Employment Appeal Tribunal appears below.
The case of Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust concerns the scope of Regulation 4(9) of the TUPE Regulations 2006, which allows a person to resign and treat her contract of employment as having been terminated if there is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tupe-and-mobility-clauses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Disability + non-disability = what?</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/disability-non-disability-what/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/disability-non-disability-what/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1331</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An intriguing but under-analysed problem is how to deal with a situation in which some symptoms of a medical condition would be able to qualify as a disability but others, in themselves, would not, such as a psychological condition resulting in impaired understanding but also a tendency to steal. If the tendency to steal were the only symptom, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/disability-non-disability-what/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Concessions</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/concessions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/concessions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:21:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Bowers v William Hill is interesting, not because it is likely to be reported but because the situation is unusual. The respondent made a concession that the claimant was disabled but the tribunal nevertheless found that her case failed, seemingly on the basis that the Respondent could not have known that her [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/concessions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law between the lines - James v Greenwich Council</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-between-the-lines-james-v-greenwich-council/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-between-the-lines-james-v-greenwich-council/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This case is reported, among other places, in the Industrial Relations Law Reports at [2008] IRLR 302. When it appeared, it frustrated many commentators because it appeared not to resolve a conflict in the authorities between those cases in which a contract of employment was implied between an agency worker and an end user, such as Dacas [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-between-the-lines-james-v-greenwich-council/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Good industrial practice</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/good-industrial-practice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/good-industrial-practice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:49:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1206</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The managing director of Employment Law Advocates is Rad Kohanzad, who was involved in a dramatic case at the Court of Appeal last week. The principle from the case of Norton Tool is that compensation for an unfair summary dismissal can include the equivalent of a payment in lieu of notice, even where the dismissed employee has found another job during [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/good-industrial-practice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Costs again</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/costs-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/costs-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Further to my discussion about Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew here, it was inevitable that the issue of costs would rear its head again. In Dunedin Canmore Housing Association v Donaldson, the Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunal followed Mathew if, that is, it is possible to follow a decision that purports to establish no principle of law. In [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/costs-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law - Employment status Part 2</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-employment-status-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-employment-status-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:57:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I noted in my last post on this topic, it is rare to find a factor in an employment relationship that provides a knock-out point as to the nature of that relationship. However, the exception that proves the rule is tax. There is remarkably little authority on the importance of this point but my experience [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-employment-status-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Substituting claimants</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/substituting-claimants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/substituting-claimants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1093</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is common in Employment Tribunals for there to be an application to substitute one respondent for another, most frequently because of a mistake, but it is unusual for a tribunal to be asked to substitute the name of a claimant. These are the facts of Enterprise Liverpool v Edwards, a recent decision of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/substituting-claimants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unconscious discrimination</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unconscious-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unconscious-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:20:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was an interesting story in the Daily Mail a few weeks ago in which the government was criticised for making fake applications for several jobs to find out whether candidates from ethnic minorities were being put at a disadvantage. This was done in part because of a proposed amendment to the Equality Bill that CVs should be required to exclude the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unconscious-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IRLR</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/irlr/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/irlr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:30:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1040</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am a big fan of the Industrial Relations Law Reports, which I find is much fresher than the Industrial Case Reports and feel it selects a better choice of cases. I still await the day when one of my cases is reported in it and I was disproportionately excited to discover the inclusion this month of Dumfries and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/irlr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fareham College v Walters</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/fareham-college-v-walters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/fareham-college-v-walters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:22:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=1026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I did promise to report back on this case when the judgment appeared and I apologise for the fact that it has taken me a week to do so. However, this is partly due to the fact that the only really new and interesting point is obiter. This is not the first case to say that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/fareham-college-v-walters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law - Employment status Part 1</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-employment-status-part-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-employment-status-part-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:10:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employment status can appear to be a very confusing issue. It proliferates authorities containing such exotic terms as &#8217;mutuality of obligations&#8217;, the &#8216;control test&#8217; and the &#8216;economic reality&#8217; test. Witness statements often contain a vast shopping list of details about the nature of the employment relationship from the layout of the office  to the ownership of the company fax machine. There have been decisive shifts in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-employment-status-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is likely?</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/what-is-likely/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/what-is-likely/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:34:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A key role of the House of Lords is preserving consistency in the interpretation of statutes across many different areas of law. While it is sometimes criticised, containing as it does no employment lawyers, for losing sight of industrial reality, it can also provide a refreshingly straightforward approach. Such is the case in SCA Packaging v Boyle, which [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/what-is-likely/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More about constructive dismissal</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/more-about-constructive-dismissal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/more-about-constructive-dismissal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Nationwide Building Society v Niblett is another well-reasoned decision by Judge Richardson which will hopefully clear up some confusion about the case of Bournemouth University v Buckland that I have highlighted in a previous post. Firstly, it emphasises that the Fairbrother line of cases, which appear to bring the reasonable range of responses test into [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/more-about-constructive-dismissal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Riam Dean</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/riam-dean/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/riam-dean/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Like everyone else, I have been rather fascinated by the case that was heard in the London Central Employment Tribunal last week in which a law student who is missing an arm from birth brought a claim against Abercrombie &#38; Fitch alleging disability discrimination. This case has it all - glamour, intrigue and cardigans! The fact that she has received so much support from the usually disability-lukewarm media [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/riam-dean/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Employment Law Years - 1998</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-employment-law-years-1998/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-employment-law-years-1998/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:25:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There will be more dark law soon but I am starting a new feature today which looks at decisions from the history of employment law. Many are forgotten but they sometimes have an unexpected relevance for the controversies of today. The first year I have selected is 1998, when the first appellate cases on the Disability Discrimination [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-employment-law-years-1998/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Piggyback claims</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/piggyback-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/piggyback-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:59:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=862</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fascinating case of Hartlepool Borough Council v Llewellyn concerns an issue which surprisingly has not been resolved in nearly forty years since the Equal Pay Act was passed, which is whether men who carry out the same work as women who are successful in equal pay claims can bring their own claims under the Act, using [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/piggyback-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to waste Council Tax</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/how-to-waste-council-tax/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/how-to-waste-council-tax/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:48:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was very pleased to read this story on the BBC News website, which confirms that Cheltenham Borough Council has lost its ludicrously expensive and potentially vexatious claim against its former managing director, Christine Laird. In fighting the case, the council has spent an amount close to the £1 million it was claiming and was ordered to pay a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/how-to-waste-council-tax/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Overpayments</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/overpayments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/overpayments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article in the Daily Telegraph concerns a Barclays Bank employee who was paid £19,000 a year for three years when she should have received a salary of £9,500. An Employment Tribunal in Ashford ruled, firstly, that she does not have to return the overpayment and, secondly, that she should continue to be paid the higher amount. It is unfortunate that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/overpayments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law - Medical evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-medical-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-medical-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Medical evidence is often required by Employment Tribunals, from short letters by GPs to explain why a person failed to turn up to a hearing, to detailed expert reports in order to establish whether a person qualifies for protection under the Disability Discrimination Act. There is case law which indicates that tribunals should not substitute their view for that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-medical-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Notes of evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/notes-of-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/notes-of-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=674</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Knight v Treherne Care &#38; Consultancy is primarily about unfair dismissal but there is also a point about the Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction and the procedure within it for agreeing a record of the hearing below. In civil law, an appellant is entitled to receive a transcript produced by the court and, although it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/notes-of-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tempting a person of the opposite sex requires concentration and attention</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tempting-a-person-of-the-opposite-sex-requires-concentration-and-attention/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tempting-a-person-of-the-opposite-sex-requires-concentration-and-attention/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Therefore, reality television contestants are employees, according to the French Supreme Court.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/tempting-a-person-of-the-opposite-sex-requires-concentration-and-attention/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Witnesses</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/witness-statements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/witness-statements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=651</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Friday, I report on an intellectually worthy and interesting decision about tribunal procedure and on a story about adulterous flirtation on a tropical island. In McBride v Standards Board for England, it was held that an Employment Judge sitting alone at a case management discussion can rule that certain witnesses should be prevented from appearing at the full hearing on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/witness-statements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law between the lines - King v Eaton</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-between-the-lines-king-v-eaton/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-between-the-lines-king-v-eaton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision of the Court of Session in King v Eaton is reported in the Industrial Relations Law Reports at [1996] IRLR 199, and is one of those cases that appears to say a lot more than is in the headnote. According to the IRLR, the tribunal at first instance was entitled to find the dismissals [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-between-the-lines-king-v-eaton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Women have never had it so good?</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/women-have-never-had-it-so-good/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/women-have-never-had-it-so-good/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 22:54:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rad</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In today&#8217;s Observer, Sir Stuart Rose, the CEO of M&#38;S,  is quoted as saying that women &#8220;have never had it so good&#8221; and that &#8220;Apart from the fact that you&#8217;ve got more equality than you ever can deal with, the fact of the matter is that you&#8217;ve got real democracy and there really are no [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/women-have-never-had-it-so-good/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mitigating Malcolm</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/mitigating-malcolm/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/mitigating-malcolm/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 16:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=593</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The barristers&#8217; chambers Cloisters is publicising the case of Fareham College v Walters, in which it was held that an employer who dismisses an employee, having failed to make reasonable adjustments, is liable for disability discrimination. This gives a new angle for claimants who are prevented by Lewisham v Malcolm from arguing that a dismissal constitutes disability-related discrimination. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/mitigating-malcolm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My day in the Employment Appeal Tribunal</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/my-day-in-the-employment-appeal-tribunal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/my-day-in-the-employment-appeal-tribunal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 14:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The regular readers of this blog will remember this post back in March in which I discussed a TUPE case that I have been running at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I can confirm that the hearing took place yesterday in front of Judge Hand QC. I coped well with some difficult questions from him but judgment was reserved so it will be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/my-day-in-the-employment-appeal-tribunal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Political opinion</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/political-opinion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/political-opinion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 22:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, the House of Lords ruled in the case of McConkey v The Simon Community, concerning the Northern Irish law against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, with whom three other Law Lords agreed, held that a statutory exclusion of political opinions supporting the use of violence meant that it would be wrong to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/political-opinion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law - Motives for unfair dismissal Part 3</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 15:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Like dark matter, dark law is not possible to observe directly but its existence can be detected by the gravitational forces that it exerts on visible law, which are not always straightforward. Sometimes it appears as a negative, as in the case of Mercy v Northgate, which is authority for the proposition that a tribunal is not required to find bad [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Positive discrimination</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/positive-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/positive-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 12:47:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The dust is now beginning to settle following the publication of the Equality Bill a month ago. Not surprisingly, the most attention has been focused on provisions which allow positive discrimination to be used as a tie-breaker in recruitment, where there are two equally well qualified candidates. Much of the criticism has been ill thought out and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/positive-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When is an investigation necessary?</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/when-is-an-investigation-necessary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/when-is-an-investigation-necessary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 18:05:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I have been discussing unfair dismissal, it is appropriate to flag up the case of Compass Group v Okoro, which appeared on the Employment Appeal Tribunal website today. It resolves a conflict in the literature between a line of cases which indicates that, when an act of gross misconduct has been admitted, no further investigation by the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/when-is-an-investigation-necessary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law - Motives for unfair dismissal Part 2</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 16:26:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The range of reasonable responses test means an employer has a lot of leeway in dismissing its employees for misconduct. This makes it impossible in practice to run a &#8216;de minimis&#8217; argument and suggest, for example, that a theft of something small in value can never be a dismissible offence. Furthermore, it follows that there [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buckland again</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 15:41:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have had some more thoughts about why a breach of the impied term of trust and confidence can never result in a fair dismissal. My previous post notes that a breach of the implied term is defined as conduct which is likely to destroy or seriously undermine trust but there is a further part to the test, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/buckland-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Constructive dismissal turned upside-down</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/constructive-dismissal-turned-upside-down/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/constructive-dismissal-turned-upside-down/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 17:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There has recently been a spate of judgments from the Employment Appeal Tribunal which have recapitulated trite principles such that there has been little of interest to report. This has all changed with the remarkable case of Bournemouth University v Buckland, which reaches two notable conclusions. Firstly, it disapproves three other EAT authorities which state [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/constructive-dismissal-turned-upside-down/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law - Motives for unfair dismissal Part 1</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 14:26:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Given the emphasis in the case law, a person could be forgiven for thinking that unfair dismissal law is all about procedure. However, for those new to the area, the approach taken by tribunals can be confusing. Sometimes it seems as though tiny breaches in procedure can be blown up out of all proportion while, at other times, a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law-motives-for-unfair-dismissal-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Costs in discrimination cases</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/costs-in-discrimination-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/costs-in-discrimination-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/costs-in-discrimination-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dark law</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:32:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 &#8220;dark law&#8221;. 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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/dark-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Calculating compensation</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/calculating-compensation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/calculating-compensation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/calculating-compensation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unless orders</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unless-orders/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unless-orders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/unless-orders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RIP DDP</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/rip-ddp/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/rip-ddp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:53:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=75</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/rip-ddp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Malcolm again</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/malcolm-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/malcolm-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:56:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=54</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is usually considered to be a fundamental principle of justice and the finality of litigation that an appeal court cannot overturn a decision unless it identifies an error of law, such as a misdirection, a perverse finding of fact or a procedural error. However, in the case of Hose Express Thurrock v Jacomb, all [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/malcolm-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Crisis at the EHRC</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/crisis-at-the-ehrc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/crisis-at-the-ehrc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:34:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/crisis-at-the-ehrc/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It was reported on the front page of the Guardian on Saturday morning that Sir Bert Massie, the former chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, has threatened to resign from his post as a commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. His decision follows three resignations earlier in the same week and many people are unhappy with the direction in which the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/crisis-at-the-ehrc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The future of TUPE</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-future-of-tupe/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-future-of-tupe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-future-of-tupe/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This morning, Daniel Barnett reported on the case of Roydon v Barnetts Solicitors, a decision of the Liverpool Employment Tribunal regarding the new TUPE Regulations. In my view, as far as the finding that there had been a service provision change is concerned, the only surprising thing about it is that anyone is surprised. Even the commentators [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-future-of-tupe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What needs to be pleaded?</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/what-needs-to-be-pleaded/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/what-needs-to-be-pleaded/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:55:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/what-needs-to-be-pleaded/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of Swallow Security Services v Millicent, it was unsurprisingly found that a tribunal has a duty to consider contributory fault of its own motion when it has not been pleaded and has not been raised in submissions by an unrepresented party. This is consistent with the approach to many other areas of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/what-needs-to-be-pleaded/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is being green a religion?</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/is-being-green-a-religion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/is-being-green-a-religion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:27:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/is-being-green-a-religion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was a curious story in the Daily Telegraph yesterday. A former executive of a property company claimed he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his belief in climate change and a tribunal ruled that it did have jurisdiction to hear the case under the Religion or Belief Regulations. While I have every sympathy for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/is-being-green-a-religion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The impact of Malcolm</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-impact-of-malcolm/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-impact-of-malcolm/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:34:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-impact-of-malcolm/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Employment Appeal Tribunal have made a number of recent decisions about the impact of the House of Lords decision in Lewisham v Malcolm. They have all held that Malcolm does apply to employment law but, in most cases, this has made very little difference to the outcome. This supports the view of the government in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/the-impact-of-malcolm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More about blacklists</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/more-about-blacklists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/more-about-blacklists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/more-about-blacklists/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As Usefully Employed has noted in his excellent blog, there is an apparently legal blacklist in the form of the National Staff Dismissal Register. I share his disquiet, especially in the current economic climate in which several banks are dismissing a surprisingly small number of staff on the grounds of redundancy but a surprisingly large number of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/more-about-blacklists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blacklists</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/blacklists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/blacklists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/blacklists/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was disturbing news in the press last week about blacklisting in the construction industry. A small company called the Consulting Association compiled a database of workers who had been involved in union activities, had brought tribunal claims or who had blown the whistle about poor health and safety practices. Worryingly, most of the employees concerned are likely [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/blacklists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Redundancy and the DDP</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/redundancy-and-the-ddp/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/redundancy-and-the-ddp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/redundancy-and-the-ddp/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Smith Knight Fay v McCoy has already produced a lot of commentary. Among other things, it clarifies the fact that a premature decision to dismiss will not in itself breach the statutory procedure and the fact that the requirements under the procedure for the contents of a step one letter are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/redundancy-and-the-ddp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Welcome to the Employment Law Advocates Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/welcome-to-the-employment-law-advocates-blog/</link>
		<comments>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/welcome-to-the-employment-law-advocates-blog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:12:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Medhurst</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/welcome-to-the-employment-law-advocates-blog/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome to our new blog! We shall be providing regular updates on new cases and employment law stories in the media. There are already a number of blogs in this area - see our blogroll - but we intend to provide our own unique approach. While there will be the occasional flight of academic fancy, the blog is aimed primarily [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/welcome-to-the-employment-law-advocates-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
