Category Archives: Case update

Case update (2): Discrimination – Employer’s defence

discrimination definition
Summary:  Can an employer successfully defend itself against a harassment claim by showing that it provided training to the harasser, regardless of when this took place? No, says the EAT in Allay v Gehlen (available here).  Employers have an ongoing duty to review and refresh training aimed at preventing discrimination, bullying, and harassment.  The training…
Continue reading


Case update (4):  Constructive unfair dismissal and grievance procedure

Summary:  Can an employee successfully claim constructive dismissal if they use the grievance procedure following the alleged breach of contract? Yes, says the EAT in Gordon v J & D Pierce (Contracts) Ltd available here. Background:  Constructive dismissals occur when an employee resigns in response to their employer’s repudiatory breach of the employment contract.  However,…
Continue reading


Case update (1): Employment Status – Uber drivers confirmed ‘workers’

private hire drivers
What do we already know? We updated you in our January 2019 Newsletter Case update (1): Employment status – UBER drivers confirmed ‘workers’ on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Uber v Aslam that drivers who provide services to the online taxi firm, Uber, are ‘workers’, rather than self-employed. Uber appealed to the Supreme Court…
Continue reading


Case update (3):  Confidential information – Accept with care

Summary:  What is the correct legal test to decide if an employer owes an obligation of confidence when receiving information? The Court of Appeal held that the correct test is whether a reasonable person in the position of the recipient would have notice that the information, or some of it, may be confidential to another…
Continue reading


Case update (1): Agency workers – Terms & conditions

picture of various workers
Summary:  Are agency workers entitled to apply and be considered for vacancies on the same terms as directly-recruited employees under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010? No, held the EAT in Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd & anor v Kocur & anor, available here. Background:  The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR) were introduced to ensure that the…
Continue reading


Case update (2):  Discrimination – Interim relief

discrimination definition
Summary:  Do Tribunals have the power to grant interim relief for discrimination claims? No, but the current absence of interim relief is probably unlawful, held the EAT in Steer v Stormshore Ltd available here. Background:  Interim relief is where an order is made by the Tribunal for the continuation of the claimant’s employment (including wages)…
Continue reading


Case update (1): A constructive unfair dismissal case

Summary: Can an employee be constructively dismissed during a redundancy process when an employer seeks to “map” their role into a new role, rather than treat the employee as redundant? Yes, says the EAT in Argos Limited v Ms K Kuldo available here. Facts:  Ms Kuldo, the employee, was employed by Argos, the employer, as…
Continue reading


Case update (3):  An employer is justified in discriminating against an employee if the actions reduce company costs and the employer is suffering an absence of means satisfying the ‘COSTS PLUS’ rule

Summary: Is an employer justified in discriminating against an employee if the actions reduce company costs? Yes, says the Court of Appeal in Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice available here, if the employer is suffering an ‘absence of means’. Background:  Where a provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) planned by an employer impacts on…
Continue reading


Case update (4):  Workers protected in the same way as employees from being subject to detriments on both Health and Safety grounds and the right to be provided with PPE

Case update (4):  Workers protected in the same way as employees from being subject to detriments on both Health and Safety grounds and the right to be provided with PPE Summary:  Should workers have protection from being subjected to detriments on health and safety grounds, and the right to be provided with PPE, in the…
Continue reading


Case update (2):  Employer’s liability – the tribunal finds nothing to laugh about in an employee’s practical joke

Summary: Is an employer liable for an employee’s practical joke that causes another person personal injury? No, says the High Court in Chell v. Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd available here.  The incident was unconnected to any instruction given by the employer to the employee in relation to his work and could not be said…
Continue reading