We look at the key takeaways for employers from the EAT’s first decision on the fairness of a COVID-19 related dismissal on our website.
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
About Mark Hamilton
Mark is a partner in Dentons' Employment and Labor practice. He has specialised in employment law since 1995. He advises on all aspects of employment law including Executive contracts and severances, TUPE transfers, collective employee relations, large restructuring and redundancy programmes, negotiation and termination of contracts and unfair dismissals. He is recognized as having both top class technical legal knowledge and an extremely pragmatic approach whether he is providing strategic advice or guiding clients through a complex dispute.
You might also like...
Parliament’s closing acts: new employment legislation before general election
By
Jane Bowen
Sexual harassment risk assessments – five top tips
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.