Naming the High Commission as a party is tantamount to naming the state (Nigerian High Commission v Iheme)

Employment by a High Commission is the same as employment by that state and naming a state’s High Commission as a party in proceedings is tantamount to naming the state. That does not contravene principles of international law, is not contrary to the scheme of section 14 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978)… >>

Unfair dismissal—when non-decision-maker’s motivation will be attributed to employer (Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd)

In an unfair dismissal case, the Jhuti exception, when the motivation of a non-decision-maker can be attributed to the employer when ascertaining the reason for dismissal, is narrow and exceptional and three features must be present for that exception to apply—1) the non-decision-maker must have sought to procure the dismissal for a proscribed reason, 2)… >>

Civil stress claim after employment tribunal settlement not an abuse (Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources Ltd)

The defendant employer’s application to strike out a civil claim on the grounds that it was an abuse of process contrary to CPR3.4(2)(b) was dismissed by the High Court. The defendant argued that the settlement of an employment tribunal claim in February 2015, lodged in December 2014, arising out of work related stress caused by… >>

Costs: assessing whether the claim or response had no reasonable prospects of success (Opalkova v Acquire Care)

When deciding whether to make a preparation time order or an order for costs of representation on the ground that the claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success, the tribunal should consider each cause of action comprised in the ET1 separately (or each defence to each such cause of action in the ET3)…. >>

Email from employer to HR consultant was privileged as not iniquitous despite suggesting pre-determined decision to dismiss (Abbeyfield (Maidenhead) Society v Hart)

An email from an employer to its HR consultant, sent before an internal disciplinary appeal meeting, indicating a determination to dismiss a suspended employee come what may, was not iniquitous and therefore did not have to be disclosed. It did not fall within the iniquity exception to litigation privilege (which, where it applies, means that… >>

Dismissal for loss of trust and confidence not unfair despite lack of appeal (Moore v Phoenix Product Development)

Procedural fairness in unfair dismissal claims does not always require the employer to offer an internal appeal against dismissal. In cases where the employer is dismissing because it has irretrievably lost trust and confidence in the employee, circumstances may in rare cases arise where an internal appeal would be futile and serve no purpose, with… >>

Redundancy dismissals: tribunal says employer not obliged to continue to furlough staff

Following the decision in Mhindurwa v Lovingangels Care Ltd, in which an employment tribunal held that an employee, who was made redundant in the early months of the pandemic, was unfairly dismissed because her employer did not consider furloughing her, another tribunal has reached a different conclusion on a different set of facts. In Handley… >>