Cautionary note for employers — victimisation
By Helen Barney
Helen Barney looks at the recent case of Woodhouse v West North West Homes Ltd 2013 UKEAT 0007_12_0506.
The recent unreported decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Woodhouse v West North West Homes Ltd 2013 UKEAT 0007_12_0506 is likely to limit the extent to which employers can draw a parallel with the case of Martin v Devonshire Solicitors  ICR 352 when dealing with serial complainants/litigants on a proscribed ground.
The appellant had pursued some 10 grievances and submitted nine tribunal applications over a period of five years of employment, complaining of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The respondent dismissed the appellant on grounds that the relationship had ‘irretrievably broken down and trust and confidence no longer exists between the parties’…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
How interesting: the public interest disclosure requirement of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act
Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view?
TUPE applies where a client decides to engage a new service provider instead of an existing one, but what if the client instructs the existing service provider to remove an employee from the contract before the TUPE transfer takes place?