header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 28 October 2015

28 October 2015 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7674 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
web_smitht

Ian Smith reviews some interesting contrasts in recent employment case law

 

Rather unusually, the case law in the last month contained three sets of, in effect, paired cases which provide interesting contrasts. The first pair concerned the concept of the “service provision change” (SPC) in TUPE law, the second the perpetual problem of where to draw the line on the territorial jurisdiction of British employment tribunals and the third the difficult area of discrimination arising from disability.

Service provision changes—the problem

Much of the case law on whether an individual was or was not “assigned” to the organised grouping of employees that is subject to an SPC has concerned current, active employees, and the question whether they were sufficiently connected to the (part of) undertaking being transferred. However, two contemporaneous cases recently concerned a wholly different problem, namely where there is clearly a SPC and the organised grouping is equally clear, but the twist is that the employee in question was not actually working on the task in question immediately before the

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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll