The EAT’s recent decision in Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd clarifies the scope and limits of the protected conversation regime under s.111A of the Employment
The Employment Tribunal’s reserved judgment in Crawford-Thomas v Collinson (Central Services) Limited offers a useful reminder that a genuine business case for redundancy is not,
In Shawcross v SMG Europe Holdings Ltd and ors, Ms Shawcross argued that email correspondence between her former employer and its legal advisers, which she
In the case of AYZ v BZA, the EAT granted lifelong anonymity to the Claimant in circumstances where she had filed a police report alleging
In a recent Court of Appeal judgment, an Employment Tribunal was found to have erred in deciding that an employee had all the facts she
In a recent case, the EAT has upheld a decision of an Employment Judge not to strike out Employment Tribunal claims brought against a US
In Garrod v Riverstone Management Ltd the EAT has held that a settlement offer made to an employee after she had complained about discrimination, but before she had started legal proceedings, was genuinely without prejudice and not unambiguously improper.
In the recent case of Dr Piepenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Science the EAT made an anonymity order to protect the identity of a non-party and non-witness to the proceedings who was the subject of false, lurid sexual allegations.
In the recent case of Pryce v Baxter Storey Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that it could not hear a claimant’s sex and race discrimination claims because she had not obtained an Acas Early Conciliation certificate before submitting her Employment Tribunal claim form.
Today, the Employment Appeal Tribunal handed down judgment in the case of Maya Forstater, who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex.
Following BDBF’s recent win in the EAT, Gareth Brahams will be speaking at the ELA annual conference on 14 June alongside James Laddie QC
In Queensgate Investments LLP v Millet the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that applications for interim relief should be heard in public, save where an order is made to restrict publicity.
