On our website, we look at what employers can take away from a recent EAT decision on protected conversations, including the limits of the protection and the importance of handling exit discussions carefully. You can read our insight here.

Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Sarah Lovell

About Sarah Lovell

Sarah is a hugely experienced litigator, having successfully defended many claims in both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. She has dealt with a wide range of claims, including all forms of discrimination, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, whistleblowing and holiday pay claims.

Full bio

Alison Weatherhead

About Alison Weatherhead

Alison supports and advises clients on the full range of human resource queries and acts for clients in employment tribunals and judicial mediations, predominantly for employers. Her experience in tribunals includes advising on unfair dismissal, disability discrimination claims, whistleblowing claims and unlawful deductions from wages.

Full bio

You might also like...

EAT finds you cannot cherry pick from without prejudice conversations

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in the recent case of Graham v. Agilitas IT Solutions Ltd. (Agilitas), ruled that an employer cannot rely on parts of a without prejudice conversation held in accordance with s.111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and/or the "common law" without prejudice rule, whilst at the same time seeking to use the without prejudice rule as a shield in reference to that same conversation. S.111A of the ERA permits discussions between an employer and an employee with a view to terminating employment on agreed terms to remain confidential and inadmissible in proceedings before a tribunal for unfair dismissal.

By UK People Reward and Mobility Team