Wed11222017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Pension schemes which restrict benefits for same-sex spouses and civil partners will need to be changed as a recent ruling means they no longer comply with UK law, reports Fudia Smartt

In the milestone judgment of Walker v Innospec Ltd [2017], the Supreme Court held that same-sex civil partners and spouses are entitled to the same pension on the death of their partner or spouse as heterosexual couples. Therefore, para 18 of Sch 9 of the Equality Act 2010 was deemed to be incompatible with the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.

Phil Allen looks at a recent Court of Appeal decision and why it means there will be increases to discrimination awards in employment tribunals

Discrimination awards and settlements for employment claims will rise following a landmark Court of Appeal decision and a resulting consultation launched by the presidents of the employment tribunals. In its long-awaited judgment in De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd [2017], the court has confirmed that discrimination awards for injury to feelings and personal injury made in the employment tribunal should be increased. That has now been followed by a judicial consultation which proposes significant increases in tribunal injury to feelings awards in discrimination cases.

Tim Leaver, Paul Young and Jemima Coleman summarise the key findings of the Taylor review and analyse its impact in the context of recent case law

After months of anticipation, Matthew Taylor’s Review of Modern Working Practices was published on 11 July 2017. Unquestionably, significant time and effort went into engaging with gig companies, interested parties and workers to understand the complex dynamics of the gig economy and its impact on working practices.

Richard Fox examines the practical and political issues arising from the Supreme Court’s momentous decision that charging claimants to bring an employment tribunal complaint is unlawful

Quite how the government managed to hold on to the Employment Tribunal Fees Order (the Fees Order) for so long may come to be one of the mysteries of our age. The Fees Order came into effect the day after it came into force on 28 July 2013. It introduced for the first time the need to pay a fee to issue an employment tribunal claim and thereafter a fee to have the case heard. For ‘Type A’ cases (the more standard claims), these fees were £160 and £230 respectively. For ‘Type B’ cases, generally speaking the more complicated claims, these fees were £250 and £950 respectively.

Clare Gregory rounds up recent case law and developments affecting employers and their advisers

Kate Gardner and Sarah Driscoll report on a recent case on holiday pay which could have major implications for gig economy businesses

As employers and their advisers will be aware, there has been a series of far-reaching legal developments on workers’ and employees’ rights to holiday pay in the last few years. The pace of change shows no sign of slowing, following the advocate general’s (AG’s) recent opinion in King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd [2017] that the right to paid annual leave carries over indefinitely until a worker has the opportunity to exercise it.

Emma Naughton examines two recent cases on the tricky issue of which country’s courts have jurisdiction to hear an international worker’s employment claims

As the workforce continues to become more mobile and global, it is not always clear which country’s courts or tribunals should hear an employee’s claims. This article looks at the possible impact of two recent cases dealing with the issue of territorial jurisdiction. The first, Green v SIG Trading Ltd [2017], was an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision. The second, Nogueira v Crewlink Ltd; Moreno Osacar v Ryanair [2017], was the opinion of the Advocate General (AG) on a case concerning the aviation sector. This sector has been alive to the problems caused by having a mobile workforce for longer than other sectors but still comes across practical issues.

Phil Allen and Louise Singh look at the implications of a recent Supreme Court decision on how much pay to deduct when employees go on strike for a day

If employees are on strike, an employer does not have to pay them for the periods when they are not working. In the recent case of Hartley v King Edward VI College [2017], the Supreme Court considered how much pay an employer was entitled to deduct when tutors at a sixth form college took part in a day of lawful strike action.