Source: https://fieldcourt.co.uk/publication-category/newsletters/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:42:49+00:00

Document:
Jason Braier looks at today’s momentous Supreme Court decision in R (Unison) v. Lord Chancellor to declare unlawful the employment tribunal fees regime.
The long-awaited Court of Appeal judgment in Chesterton Global Ltd and Another v. Nurmohamed and Another is finally out, a mere 27 months after the EAT’s ruling somewhat emasculated the intended Parkins v. Sodexho reversal of the public interest test under s.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Its guidance is, at best, intentionally fuzzy, as Jason Braier explains.
Alistair Cantor reviews the Supreme Court’s decision on the appropriate rate of deductions from pay for striking workers. The ruling is likely to have implications for most professionals on annual contracts paid monthly.
Eirwen Pierrot examines the recent decision in Interserve FM Ltd v Tuleikyte (UKEAT/0267/16/JOJ), in which the EAT allowed an appeal against the decision of an employment tribunal which had wrongly treated a s.18 Equality Act claim as a “criterion” type case, rather than a “reasons why” type case.
April 10, 2017 Is gender segregation in mixed schools discriminatory?
Jason Braier looks at the Supreme Court’s restoration of sanity on indirection discrimination law in its judgments in Essop and Others v. Home Office (UK Border Agency) and Naeem v. Secretary of State for Justice  UKSC 27.
Grace Cheng looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Harrod and Others v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and Others, where the Court gives helpful guidance on the appropriate focus for tribunals considering indirect discrimination claims.
March 21, 2017 Disproportionate and/or unreasonable: does one amount to the other?
Alistair Cantor looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Georgina O’Brien v Bolton St Catherine’s Academy on the relationship between the tests of disproportionality under s15 EqA and that of unreasonableness under s98(4) ERA.
Nikolas Clarke considers the CJEU’s controversial decision in Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions NV on the lawfulness of banning staff from wearing religious dress.
Jason Braier looks at the EAT decision in Tees Esk & Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v. (1) Harland and Others (2) Danshell Healthcare Ltd on how and when to identify the principal purpose.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKSC 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.