Case report round-up: Exceptions to "without prejudice" rule are very limited

XpertHR's latest case reports cover:

Exceptions to "without prejudice" rule are very limited In Woodward v Santander UK plc (formerly Abbey National plc) EAT/0250/09, the EAT clarified when exceptions to the "without prejudice" rule will be allowed, so without prejudice communications can be used in evidence before an employment tribunal. (Employers' Law)
No ascertainable effective date of termination for employee In Mitie Security (London) Ltd v Ibrahim EAT/0067/10, the EAT held that there was no ascertainable effective date of termination for an employee and that, although the employer had removed him from his workplace, he had therefore not been dismissed. (Employers' Law)
Employer's liability for actions of employee's race discrimination In Leeds City Council v Woodhouse and another [2010] IRLR 625 CA, the Court of Appeal considered whether or not the employer could be liable for the acts of one of its employees who discriminated against an employee of one of its service providers. (Employers' Law)
Employer not liable for injury during "horseplay" at work In Wilson v EXEL UK Ltd [2010] CSIH 35 CS, the Court of Session found that an employer was not liable for the actions of an employee who injured a colleague when he grabbed her hair (which was in a ponytail) and pulled her head back during "horseplay". (Employers' Law)
"Attitude" as a redundancy selection criterion In McCormick v Short Brothers plc [2010] NICA 14 CA, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal considered the fairness of a redundancy selection exercise where "attitude" was a criterion relevant to selection. (Employers' Law)

Also

Editor's choice

Case report round-up: Exceptions to "without prejudice" rule are very limited

Was this article helpful?

About this resource

Templates

When To Include