Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Employment Law Journal: June 2012

Jemima Coleman considers the next steps in the government’s proposed overhaul of employment legislation

The Queen’s Speech on 9 May 2012 gave employment lawyers an insight into the likely legal framework for the government’s proposed employment law reforms. Three new bills are of particular interest to employment lawyers:

Lewis Silkin

Christopher Hitchins analyses the eagerly awaited decisions in Seldon and Homer on justifying direct and indirect age discrimination

The Supreme Court has recently handed down its judgments in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] and Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012]. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has had to consider the issue of age discrimination (direct in the case of Seldon and indirect in the case of Homer ) in the context of retirement.

Sarah Fitzpatrick looks at the lessons from recent case law on applying for a costs order

A number of recent cases have highlighted the steps that parties should take if they want to make a successful application for costs. This article will consider the rules and the judgments from the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), including some practical advice for practitioners.


The EAT has recently looked at whether a selection pool of one is a fair way of making employees redundant, report Dan Aherne and Hannah Shribman

This article focuses on the construction of selection pools in light of two recent cases and, in particular, the employment tribunal’s duty to scrutinise those pools when considering the fairness of a redundancy dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions in Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard [2012] and Halpin v Sandpiper Books Ltd [2012] provide useful guidance for employers that are considering redundancies where only one dismissal is proposed or where the choice of selection pools is not obvious.

Stephen Brown, Sarah Gadd and Emma Perkins weigh up the challenges and benefits for employers of implementing a single set of anti-discrimination standards across their international operations

Employers with multi-jurisdictional operations often seek to implement policies that apply to all of their employees around the world. Rolling out a global anti-discrimination policy can prove challenging, however, because equality laws varying from one jurisdiction to the next.

Dechert LLP

A recent decision may provide some encouragement to employers seeking to resist compliance with subject access requests that they believe have been made for the purposes of actual or contemplated litigation, writes Charles Wynn-Evans

Many employers, and especially managers charged with dealing with such requests, must dread the receipt of a subject access request (SAR). In particular, the process of identifying the electronic material, which refers to the individual requesting the information and then analysing that material to assess whether it should be disclosed as personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), can be remarkably time consuming. Moreover, an employer that receives such a request from a current or former employee, or from an unsuccessful job applicant, may be concerned that it is little more than a ‘fishing expedition’ intended to bolster an actual or intended claim or to seek out material that will be damaging to the employer, whether or not directly connected with any legal claim.