Why changes to interim relief could be a costly business for HR Published:
07 May 2021 The recent case of Steer v Stormsure has caused a stir in employment law and HR because it has potential to significantly expand the scope of interim relief applications to allow them in discrimination cases.
Interim Relief is an order by the Employment Tribunal that preserves your employment until after the tribunal has decided your claim for unfair dismissal.
The potential impact on businesses is huge. If an interim relief application is successful, the tribunal can order reinstatement of an employee back into the same job they were dismissed from, re-engagement into a comparable job or, in the majority of cases, back on the payroll until the final claim has been heard, which could be many months.
By John Hyde2021-05-07T12:10:00+01:00
The Court of Appeal ruled today that a legal aid firm was justified in dismissing a solicitor for ‘topping up’ sums with cash payments from his client’s father.
In
DPP Law Ltd v GreenbergLord Justice Popplewell said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal appeal had been wrong to uphold experienced solicitor Paul Greenberg s challenge to his dismissal.
Greenberg had been fired by Liverpool firm DPP Law over allegations of gross misconduct arising from his acceptance of £150 from the father of one of his legally aided clients. The employment tribunal rejected his claim for unfair dismissal, but the EAT said this decision was not sufficiently ‘rooted in findings of fact’.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Firm Escapes Suit Over Firing Atty For Taking Aid Top Up
Law360, London (May 7, 2021, 5:30 PM BST) A London appeals court on Friday sided with DPP Law Ltd. in its bid to escape a unfair dismissal challenge brought by a former partner sacked after being accused of topping up legal aid fees by accepting extra cash from a client s father.
The Court of Appeal overturned the Employment Appeal Tribunal s decision reviving former partner Paul Greenberg s suit against criminal law firm DPP Law. The tribunal had overturned an original ruling that the law firm was entitled to fire Greenberg after he accepted cash payments from the father of a legal aid client.
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
Here are answers to a handful of questions about the right to be accompanied which all came up at our webinar on grievances on 22 April. More to come this week.
The right arises under section 10 Employment Relations Act 1996 – where the worker (not just an employee) is invited to a grievance hearing and “
reasonably requests to be accompanied“, then he is entitled to attend with a willing companion chosen by him who falls within section 10(3), as to which see question 5 below. It is also enshrined in the Acas Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures and the accompanying guidance.
Historically it was thought that the “reasonably” as in “