Law reports

Precedent-setting cases from the EAT and appellate courts, along with reports of selected tribunal cases.

This tool will help you:

  • Stay up to date with developments in case law.
  • Keep informed about the situations that have led to employment tribunal claims.

Browse by case title

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Search by case title

Stop press

  • Discrimination: Instigating disciplinary procedure was start of continuing act

    Date:
    21 February 2018

    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.

  • Injury to feelings compensation can be awarded for "working time detriment"

    Date:
    21 February 2018

    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.

  • Court of Appeal rules on constructive knowledge of disability

    Date:
    15 February 2018

    In Donelien v Liberata UK Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that the employer did not have constructive knowledge of the employee's disability and that it had done all it could "reasonably be expected to have done" to find out about the nature of the employee's health problems.

  • Disability discrimination: £110,165 award for absence dismissal

    Date:
    8 February 2018

    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.

  • Restrictive covenants: Non-compete clause too wide to be enforceable

    Date:
    8 February 2018

    In Tillman v Egon Zehnder, the Court of Appeal held that a six-month non-compete clause that prevented the employee from being "concerned or interested in any business carried on in competition" after termination of employment was unenforceable as it would bar her from being a shareholder in a competing business.