Pragmatic & proactive
We provide proactive pragmatic general day to day advice on all employment issues.
Practical & responsive
Our solicitors have all gained considerable experience working for major UK law firms. The fact that we are a niche practice allows us to respond flexibly, sympathetically and in a more cost effective way.
We are experienced in advising both partners and partnerships particularly in relation to retirement of partners or members. We seek to deal with such matters in a practical and sensitive way.
We advise our employer clients on all aspects of business related immigration to assist them with hiring, relocating and retaining staff who are subject to UK immigration control.
In 2016 the ECHR decided in Burbulescu v Romania that Mr Burbulescu’s right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights had not been breached when his employer monitored his personal use of its Yahoo! Messenger account. The Grand Chamber of the ECHR has now reversed this decision. ... read more
The Vento bands originate from the 2003 case Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, in which the CA set out 3 bands for injury to feelings awards in discrimination cases. ... read more
The EAT has held, in Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd, that the Equality Act does not require a claimant to show an initial prima facie case. Instead, it is for the ET to consider all the evidence it has heard and decide if there are facts from which it can infer discrimination. If there are, and there is no explanation, the claim must be upheld. ... read more
The EAT has upheld the ET’s decision in Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willets and ors in relation to the inclusion of voluntary overtime pay in the calculation of holiday pay during the 4 weeks of leave derived from EU law. ... read more
The Supreme Court in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor has held that ET and EAT fees prevent access to justice and are unlawful under both domestic and EU law. With immediate effect, fees are no longer payable and fees paid over the last 4 years are to be refunded. ... read more
The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices, which focused on employment rights and new models of working, has recently been published. We summarise the main recommendations below. ... read more
The CA has now given judgment in Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed. Mr Nurmohamed raised concerns about the manipulation of CG’s accounts, which he alleged inflated costs by an estimated £2-3 million to artificially suppress profitability in order to reduce Mr Nuromohamed commission payments and those of another 100 senior managers. He was subsequently dismissed and claimed automatic unfair dismissal for having made a protected disclosure. ... read more
In Small v Shrewsbury & Telford Hospitals NHS Trust the CA has held that the ET should have considered whether to award compensation for long-term future loss of earnings in a whistleblowing case, even though the Claimant did not raise the point. ... read more
The Government has published its proposals for protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK on the expectation that there will be reciprocal protections for UK citizens living in other EU Member States. The proposals include: ... read more
The Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Reporting Information) Regulations 2017 require all private and voluntary sector employers with 250 or more relevant employees to report on the difference in pay (including bonus) between men and women. ... read more
The Advocate General has given his opinion in the case of King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd. ... read more
As the general election approaches, we review the employment law issues contained in the main political parties’ manifestos. ... read more
The EAT in Fulton & anor v Bear Scotland Ltd, has confirmed that in a claim involving ongoing unlawful deductions, a gap of more than 3 months between those deductions will break the series and the ET will not have jurisdiction to hear the earlier claims. ... read more
In Essop v Home Office (UK Border Agency) and Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice, the Supreme Court considered whether, in relation to an indirect discrimination claim, claimants must show the reason a “provision, criterion or practice” puts them at a particular disadvantage, not just that it did so. ... read more
We review the key developments of 2016 and look forward to upcoming changes. ... read more