News

-
The Supreme Court has held that it was fair to dismiss a head teacher who failed to disclose a relationship with a sex offender.  The Supreme Court also invited consideration for the appropriate test for misconduct dismissals. Reilly v Sandwell...
-
The Court of Appeal has upheld a tribunal’s decision that Liberata UK Limited (“LUK”) did not have constructive knowledge of an employee’s disability and, therefore, had no duty to make reasonable adjustments. The employee, Ms...
-
The Supreme Court has upheld a finding by the ET and EAT that a headteacher was fairly dismissed in circumstances where she had failed to disclose a relationship with a known sex offender.  The Claimant was a headteacher at a primary school. For...
-
The Claimant was employed by Sevacare as a homecare support assistant providing support to service users funded by Haringey Council. In 2016, Sevacare terminated its services in Haringey and care services were transferred to a number of other providers,...
-
The EAT has held that Keeping Kids Company (“KKC”) (the official name for the now-disgraced “Kids Company” charity) could not rely on events which occurred after 20+ redundancy dismissals were proposed as a defence to a claim for...
-
The European Court of Human Rights (“ ECtHR ”) has held that a Spanish supermarket using covert surveillance to monitor cashiers suspected of theft was in breach of the right to privacy. MSA is a supermarket chain in Spain.  In 2009, the...
-
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that there is no reason in principle why whistleblowers should be barred from claiming post-termination losses where these derive from pre-termination detriments. Mr Roberts was managing partner and compliance officer of a...
-
An employer’s compliance with the Fixed-Term Employees Regulations will not necessarily result in an employee’s dismissal being fair. In Drzymala the Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) employed Ms Drzymala as a...
-
An employee demoted on discriminatory grounds was not entitled to refuse to work and his subsequent dismissal for misconduct was not discriminatory. Mr Rochford suffered a back injury which prevented him from working as the vertical sales lead for WNS...
-
The EAT has confirmed in the case of Parsons v Airplus International Limited that an employee who complained about compliance issues solely out of concern for her own interest did not make a qualifying disclosure, and so was not protected for the purposes of...
David Williams
Head of Employment
Marian Bloodworth
Employment Partner
020 7710 1654
Kathryn Dooks
Employment Partner
Nicola Fulford
Commercial Technology Partner
Louisa Button
Associate
020 7710 8017
Anna Byford
Senior Associate
James Champness
Associate
Amy Douthwaite
Senior Associate
Anushka Sinha
Senior Associate
020 7710 1616
Lucy Sorell
Associate
020 7710 8024
Justin Terry
Associate
020 7710 1630