Employment Law Newsletter

March 1, 2011

Welcome to the 2011 spring issue of Field Court Chambers Employment Law Newsletter.

In our legislation update, we set out the new maxima for calculating basic and compensatory loss, précis some of the most important proposals of the Government‟s consultation document on resolving employment disputes (proposals which will make you shudder whether you act for employers or for employees!) and look at the argument raging between eminent QCs as to whether s.147 of the Equality Act 2010 prevents instructed solicitors from advising their clients on the legal effects of compromise agreements. Our case law update contains something old and something new. As for the old, the EAT has had yet another go at explaining the Igen v Wong reversal of the burden of proof test (in Hammonds v Mwitta), and has sought to refocus the costs-plus test of Cross v British Airways to one that brings proportionality to the fore (Woodcock v Cumbria PCT).

Also, in X v MidSussex CAB, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the EAT (see Issue 2 of the newsletter) that volunteers are not covered by discrimination legislation. As for the new, we have the first associative sexual orientation discrimination case to reach the EAT (Lisboa v Realpubs Ltd). A lot of the other case law contained within this newsletter urges Tribunals to focus on matters of relevance – see RBS v Ashton on reasonable adjustments, Tullet Prebon v BGC Broker LP on employer‟s intentions behind acts advanced to make up a constructive unfair dismissal claim, Pinewood Repo v Page on whether a redundant employee is given sufficient information in consultation to challenge the scoring, and Yerrakalva v Barnsley MBC on the need for cost awards to broadly reflect the costs incurred by reason of the unreasonable conduct.

We hope you enjoy the newsletter. As always, we welcome any feedback you may wish to provide.

Barristers

Links