UKemployment.jpg
People.jpg
Welcome

Welcome to the Employment Law Update for the UK.

 

In this edition we look at recent developments involving restrictive covenants, negligent mis-statements, time limits, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and victimisation.  Please click on the title to view any article.

 

As always, please do not hesitate to contact any member of the Employment Group if you have any queries on the issues covered in the Update or any other matters.


Recent cases


Restrictive covenants

Preventing competition by a former Managing Director
In Landmark Brickwork v Sutcliffe, Parkhouse and another the High Court considered to what extent the law can protect a claimant company where it is alleged that a former Managing Director has breached express post-termination restrictive covenants contained in his employment contract and misused company confidential information in helping to establish a competing business.

 

Negligent mis-statement

Claim based on 'slapdash' email

In McKie v Swindon College the claimant had worked for the respondent college until 2002. He received a good reference when he left. In 2008, he started work at Bath University. His new job involved contact with his old workplace. The new HR Director at Swindon College, relying on information given to him by others, sent a damaging email about him to his new employer, suggesting that he had problems with students and other staff. On the evidence, these statements were completely unjustified.  However, unsurprisingly, on the basis of that email he was dismissed by his new employer before he had become eligible to claim unfair dismissal.

 

Time limits

Delay while awaiting outcome of internal appeal

Unfair dismissal claims must be filed with the employment tribunal within three months of dismissal, unless it is not 'reasonably practicable' for the claimant to do so. This time limit is strictly applied. The mere fact that there is a pending internal appeal against the dismissal is not, of itself, sufficient to allow the claimant to file his/her claim out of time.

 

Protection from harassment act 1997 ("the 1997 act")

'Course of conduct'

In Marinello v City of Edinburgh Council the Scottish Court of Session considered a case where an employee had experienced a number of incidents of verbal bullying in the workplace in 2004 and 2005 following which he commenced, and remained on, long-term sick leave with a depressive disorder. In an isolated incident in 2007, while he was walking along a public road, two of his colleagues driving by in a van swerved the van towards him, sounded the horn and gesticulated at him.

 


Print friendly version


In this Issue

Restrictive covenants

Negligent mis-statement

Time limits

Protection from harassment act 1997 ("the 1997 act") 

Victimisation

 

Contact Us



What others say

Bird & Bird's employment team is 'highly responsive, thoughtful when you need a sounding board, and always combining solid theoretical knowledge with practical, no-nonsense advice.'
European Legal 500 2008

 

Clients appreciate the firm's ability to provide a total HR service through its combined employment and immigration capabilities.
Chambers and Partners 2009

 

Bird & Bird's international employment and incentives group is 'extremely useful in continental Europe,' and continues to attract high-profile work across the full range of employment issues.
Chambers Global 2009 

 

Bird & Bird's International HR Knowledge Zone

 

A one-stop-shop online resource for HR professionals and in-house counsel.

 

Enter Knowledge Zone


Victimisation

Claim based on witness statements?

In Parmar v East Leics Medical Practice the claimant tried to base a claim of harassment on remarks made in witness statements filed in connection with a previous tribunal claim which had not proceeded to a hearing. The EAT confirmed that it is not possible to do this. Even if witnesses are careless or wrong in their evidence, this cannot form the basis of a civil claim against them, or their employer.

 


Contact Us

If you have any queries on the issues covered in the Update or any other matters please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Employment Group.

 

Ian Hunter ian.hunter@twobirds.com
Warren Wayne warren.wayne@twobirds.com
Elizabeth Lang elizabeth.lang@twobirds.com
Colin Kendon colin.kendon@twobirds.com   


The content of this update is of general interest and is not intended to apply to specific circumstances. The content should not, therefore, be regarded as constituting legal advice and should not be relied on as such. In relation to any particular problem which they may have, readers are advised to seek specific advice. Further, the law may have changed since first publication and the reader is cautioned accordingly.

BIRD & BIRD

Bird & Bird is an international legal practice comprising Bird & Bird LLP and its affiliated and associated businesses. Bird & Bird LLP is a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales with registered number OC340318 and is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Its registered office and principal place of business is at 15 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP.

For details of Bird & Bird, our offices, our members, the use of e-mail and regulatory information, please see twobirds.com and, in particular, twobirds.com/english/Legal_Notices.cfm.

The word "partner" is used to refer to a member of Bird & Bird LLP or an employee or consultant, or to a partner, member, director, employee or consultant in any of its affiliated businesses, who has equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of members of Bird & Bird LLP and of any non-members who are designated as partners, and of their respective professional qualifications, is open to inspection at our London office address.

All such persons are solicitors, registered foreign lawyers or non-registered European lawyers.