Liverpool: 0151 224 0500   |   Manchester: 0161 827 4600   |   Email: info@bermans.co.uk   |   Twitter Icon  |  Linkedin Icon
bermans_logo

Religion or belief discrimination: Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Higgs v Farmor’s School – where does this leave the law now?

The long-running case of Higgs v Farmor’s School appears to have come to an end, after the Supreme Court last month refused permission to appeal. This means that the current legal position is as set out in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case from earlier this year.

Continue Reading

Wilko’s £2m Lesson: Don’t overlook collective consultation

A recent tribunal ruling against high-street retailer Wilko serves as a costly reminder that even technical breaches of collective consultation law can carry a high price. Following its 2023 collapse, Wilko was found to have failed in its legal duty to properly consult with staff ahead of making large-scale redundancies. The result? Protective awards worth around £2 million across its former workforce.

Continue Reading

Employee who fell asleep at work was unfairly dismissed

Staying awake at work is one of the most fundamental requirements of almost every job. However, the recent case of Okoro v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd serves as a reminder to employers that they should not jump to a conclusion that being asleep at work always warrants dismissal. Context must always be taken into account. In this case, Mr Okoro was a CCTV controller.

Continue Reading

Redundancy and alternative employment: Half-measures won’t do

The Employment Rights Act 1996 lists redundancy as a potentially fair reason for dismissal. But the existence of a genuine redundancy situation or a sound selection process doesn’t guarantee a fair dismissal. Employers also have a duty to explore alternatives – especially the possibility of alternative employment. Too often, this part of the process becomes a ‘tick box’ exercise: pointing to a vacancies list and leaving the rest to the employee. A recent case highlights how this approach could render an otherwise fair redundancy dismissal, unfair.

Continue Reading

No duty to make an adjustment if it would not remove the disadvantage

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. These adjustments aim to remove or reduce disadvantages caused by a disability, and can include changes to the workplace, providing assistive equipment, or adapting how tasks are carried out. The goal is to enable disabled employees to access, stay in, and thrive in work.

Continue Reading

Tribunal should have focused on what employee couldn’t do, not what he could do, when deciding if he was disabled

Whether or not an employee meets the legal definition of a disabled person is a crucial starting point in any disability discrimination case. Under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial, long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.

Continue Reading

A carer paid by his brother using money from the local authority was not employed by the local authority

It’s a basic requirement when claiming employment rights that the claimant is, in fact, an employee of the respondent. But sometimes, especially in the context of care, the lines can be blurred. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Scully v Northamptonshire County Council clarifies the distinction between care funding arrangements and employment relationships.

Continue Reading