Cases within N

• expand

  Noone v North West Thames Regional Health Authority [1988] IRLR 195 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Scope of action recommendation remedy

    Date:

    1 January 1989

    In Noone v North West Thames Regional Health Authority (No 2) (15.7.88) EOR23D, the Court of Appeal holds that an industrial tribunal, which found that the complainant had been unlawfully discriminated against for a vacancy as a consultant, erred in recommending that the employers should seek authorisation to dispense with their statutory obligation to advertise their next vacancy for a consultant.

  • Drawing inferences of discrimination

    Date:

    1 July 1988

    In Noone v North West Thames Regional Health Authority (17.3.88) EOR20E, the Court of Appeal holds that where there is a finding that a black candidate for a post has not been selected despite superior qualifications and the employer fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, usually a legitimate inference will be that the discrimination was on racial grounds.

• expand

  Noor v Telewest Communications (South East) Ltd [2000] ET/2305006/98 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Female sales rep sexually harassed

    Date:

    1 September 2000

    In Noor v Telewest Communications (South East) Ltd a London South employment tribunal (Chair: M E Stacey) holds that a female sales representative, the only woman in a sales force of around 70 employees, was subjected to a number of incidents of sexual harassment over a 12-month period, including the posting of female pin-ups in her office and the making of sexist comments about her by a manager in front of her colleagues.

• expand

  Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw EAT/0150/13 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Whistleblowing: Protected disclosure can be made up of several communications taken together

    Date:

    30 June 2014

    In Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw EAT/0150/13, the EAT held that a worker had made a protected disclosure within the meaning of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, by warning of the danger of sales representatives being required to drive in heavy snow. This was a disclosure of information tending to show a risk to health and safety and went beyond a mere assertion or expression of opinion. The fact that the disclosure was made through three separate emails to two different people did not alter the fact that a protected disclosure had been made.

  • Whistleblowing: emails to different individuals taken together may amount to a qualifying disclosure

    Date:

    3 February 2014

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with an employment tribunal that emails sent by the claimant taken together were capable of amounting to qualifying disclosures, even though the emails were sent to different individuals in different departments.

• expand

  Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Smyth 30 September 1986 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Contracts of employment: Confidentiality clause valid

    Date:

    18 August 1987

    In Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Smyth the High Court in Northern Ireland holds that a restrictive covenant which was signed by an employee in the course of employment was binding in law. The court further holds that the confidentiality clause should not be regarded as void for being In restraint of trade even though the restriction was world-wide and was to last for one year alter the employment ended.

• expand

  Norcup v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2002] ET/2502934/01 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case digest

    Date:

    1 December 2002

    Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

• expand

  Norman and another v National Audit Office [2015] IRLR 634 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 April 2015

    James Buckley, Iain Naylor, Chris McAvoy and Lucy Sorell are associates and Mona Jackson is a trainee solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.

• expand

  Norris v Lambert (t/a Black Bull Inn) (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 May 2006

    Joe Glavina and Rob Riley of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to do to avoid tribunals.

• expand

  Nortey v Comet Group plc [2007] ET/2303484/2006 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case digest: race discrimination

    Date:

    1 November 2007

    Tina McKevitt, solicitor and lecturer in law, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on race discrimination.

• expand

  North and others v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2011] IRLR 239 CS (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: Not necessary to show "real possibility" of comparator from different establishment doing same work at claimant's establishment for comparator to be "in the same employment"

    Date:

    1 June 2011

    In North and others v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2011] IRLR 239 CS, the Court of Session held that the EAT's "real possibility" test incorrectly placed an additional hurdle on claimants and amounted to an error of law. However, the claimants' argument that they were in the same employment as their comparators failed on the evidence.

  • Equal pay: test for choosing comparators at different establishments

    Date:

    18 January 2011

    The Court of Session has said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal incorrectly placed an extra hurdle in equal pay claims when it said that, for a claimant to rely on a comparator employed at a different establishment, there must be a "real possibility" of the comparator doing the same, or a broadly similar, job at the claimant's place of work. 

• expand

  North and others v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2013] IRLR 737 SC (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: No need to show that comparator might be located at claimant's workplace to be "in the same employment"

    Date:

    18 November 2013

    In North and others v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2013] IRLR 737 SC, the Supreme Court held that, where a claimant and her comparator are employed at different establishments, the correct hypothetical question is whether or not, in the event (however unlikely) of the comparator being transferred to do his present job at the claimant's workplace, he would continue to enjoy the same or broadly similar terms and conditions as he did before.

  • Equal pay: no need to show that comparators might work in claimants' establishment

    Date:

    28 June 2013

    The Supreme Court has held that the fact that the work of the claimants' chosen comparators has to be carried on in a different place of work out of necessity is no barrier to bringing an equal pay claim.