Employment tribunals and courts
In X v Y Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an email containing legal advice on how to disguise a discriminatory dismissal as a redundancy is not protected by legal advice privilege and is admissible as evidence in a tribunal.
In James-Bowen and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Supreme Court held that, when defending a claim of vicarious liability, the Commissioner did not owe a duty to her police officers to take reasonable care to protect them from economic and reputational harm.
In University of Sunderland v Drossou, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that employer pension contributions should be included when calculating a "week's pay" under s.221(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In Fleming v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that covert recordings of the private deliberations of the disciplinary panel were admissible as evidence, except for any content covered by legal professional privilege.
In Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that compensation for injury to feelings is not available in a claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) for a failure to provide 20-minute rest breaks..
In Hale v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the decision to instigate the disciplinary procedure was not a one-off act, but the start of a state of affairs that would continue until the conclusion of the disciplinary process.
In South Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service v Mansell and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that workers can be awarded compensation for injury to feelings in working time detriment claims.
In Carrabyne v Department for Work and Pensions, the employment tribunal awarded £110,165 to a disabled claimant who was dismissed while on a final written attendance warning following an absence unrelated to her disabilities.
In R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] IRLR 911 SC, the Supreme Court held that the requirement for claimants to pay a fee to bring an employment tribunal claim is unlawful and that the legislation that introduced the fees must be quashed.
The Supreme Court has considered whether or not an employment tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a complaint by a doctor against the General Medical Council for discrimination.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment tribunals and courts.