Skip to main content

Need to Know: February 2024


In the latest edition of our ‘Need To Know’ employment and HR newsletter, we look at whether liability for harassment transfers under TUPE, managing the risks associated with personal relationships at work and what a Labour win in the upcoming general election could mean for employment law.

We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.

HR Bullets

  • The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an individual engaged via his service company did not have worker status for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the contract reflected the practical reality of the relationship between the parties; Plastic Omnium Automotive Ltd v Horton [2023] EAT 85
  • It was held that the Tribunal need to address all potentially relevant factors when considering whether an employment contract has been affirmed in a constructive dismissal claim, rather than solely relying on the fact of a delayed resignation; Leaney v Loughborough University [2023] EAT 155
  • A Claimant sought to amend her claim and it was held on appeal that the Tribunal should look at the substance of the complaint by reference to the whole of the claim form, instead of taking a focused and legalistic approach; Pereira v GFT Financial Ltd [2023] EAT 124
  • The Inner House of the Court of Session held that the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) permits a settlement agreement to be used to settle unknown future claims, provided that the types of claim are clearly identified and the objective meaning of the words used encompasses settlement of the relevant claim; Bathgate v Technip Singapore PTE [2023] CSIH 48
  • An Employment Tribunal awarded over £470,000 in compensation to a Claimant who was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after he used an offensive term during a race awareness training session; Borg-Neal v Lloyds Banking Group plc ET/2202667/22
  • EAT held that the ET deciding on a whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim had to give reasons as to why they discounted certain dates of knowledge, put forward in evidence by the decision-maker, in favour of one which fell after the date of the dismissal; Fry v Kingswood Learning & Leisure Group [2023] EAT 166
  • An external job applicant was not entitled to bring employment tribunal proceedings on the basis of a purported protected disclosure. Being an external job applicant is not a relevant “other status” under ECHR Article 14; Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council [2024] EAT 3
  • The Court of Appeal confirmed that non-parties can claim litigation privilege and provided guidance on the threshold test for, and scope of, the iniquity exception to privilege; Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP and others [2024] EWCA Civ 28
  • The EAT has upheld the dismissal of an indirect age discrimination claim brought by a retired employee following changes made by his former employer’s parent company to a long term incentive plan (LTIP) which had the effect of depriving him of shares and options; Fasano v Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc and another [2024] EAT 7

Share this article