header-logo header-logo

Burchell & judicial jostling

13 April 2018 / Stephen Levinson
Issue: 7788 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
nlj_7788_levison

Stephen Levinson reflects on the uncertain future of the test for fair dismissals

  • Burchell & the band of reasonable decisions test.
  • Should a full panel replace the prevailing approach of making most unfair dismissal cases the province of judges sitting alone?

Mischievous and disingenuous are not adjectives usually applied to decisions of the Supreme Court. In their comments on what constitutes a fair dismissal made in the case of Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2018] UKSC 16, [2018] All ER (D) 82 (Mar) however, these words will be applied by some with a certain amount of justification.

What was the case about?

A female head teacher of a primary school had a close (non-sexual) relationship with a man who was convicted of making indecent images of children. Having taken advice she did not disclose the relationship or conviction to the school. The governors, however, later became aware of the relationship, suspended the head teacher and then dismissed her for the non-disclosure. A claim for unfair dismissal failed as did appeals

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll