Articles by ‘Gemma Ospedale’

In Salmon v Castlebeck Care (Teesdale) Limited and others the EAT has held that where an employee successfully appeals against the employer’s decision to dismiss under a contractual appeal procedure, this automatically revives the Contract of Employment without the employer needing to make a specific decision to reinstate the employee, even if the employer has not communicated the outcome of the appeal to the employee.

In Beiber and others v Teathers Limited (in liquidation) the High Court considered whether or not an exchange of emails constituted a binding agreement. It held that it did.

In R (Compromise Agreements Limited) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills the administrative division of the High Court has refused an employment law firm permission to proceed with judicial review of the Government’s decision to impose a 12 month cap on the maximum amount of compensatory award in unfair dismissal cases. The applicant argued that the limit would have a disproportionate impact on older employees and that it breached Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; but the Court did not agree. It also held that the Secretary of State did not fail to have due regard to the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act in imposing the cap. Interestingly, the Court’s decision was strongly influenced by its view that the application for permission had not been made with sufficient speed, which endorses the importance of acting swiftly with potential judicial review cases.

Charities are being urged to ensure that they are paying staff the National Minimum Wage for sleep-in shifts. The issue of pay for members-of-staff who work shifts that incorporate a residential element has been…

In Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust and others, the EAT, in upholding a Tribunal’s decision to refuse a Claimant’s application to strike out a claim, has considered the extent to which the Civil Courts’ approach to sanctions following the Jackson reforms to the Civil Court system and rules of procedure should apply to the Tribunals. This included consideration of the decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited.

In Kaltoft v Municipality of Billund, the ECJ has held that obesity can constitute a disability under EU law in certain circumstances, setting a precedent which could have major repercussions for employers.

In McKinney v London Borough of Newham, the EAT has clarified the date on which time starts to run for bringing a claim for detrimental treatment. This is different to the date on which the time starts to run for a claim for unfair dismissal.

The case of FirstGroup Plc v Doug Paulley is a case more of anecdotal interest than legal, especially given that it created quite a publicity stir at the time. The case concerned Mr Paulley, a wheelchair user, who issued a County Court claim for disability discrimination/failure to make reasonable adjustments against a bus company when he found that he could not board a bus because the space reserved for wheelchair users was occupied by a woman with a buggy containing a small child. The driver requested the woman to move her buggy but she refused. The bus operator’s policy was that other customers would be asked to move from the wheelchair space to accommodate a wheelchair user, but that if they refused to do so, the wheelchair user would not be able to board.

In Chandhok and another v Tirkey, the EAT has rejected an appeal to strike-out a race discrimination claim, the subject matter of which was the Claimant’s caste. Despite the Government being required to amend the Equality Act to expressly provide that caste is protected under one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act, but to date it has not done so, the EAT nonetheless held that the definition of “race” in the Act covered ethnic origin and this is wide enough to encompass caste.

In February 2014 the Union’s initial challenge to the introduction of fees failed but they were granted permission to pursue the matter to the Court of Appeal. The Court indicated that if further information…

In Khan v Royal Mail Group Limited the Court of Appeal has endorsed an EAT decision that a comment to the Claimant, who was a Muslim of Pakistani origin, that a difference in perception could be due to “cultural differences” was not discriminatory on the grounds of race.

A peer has said that the UK’s divorce laws are “terribly unfair” and in desperate need of reform.