Employment Law Opinion

3 Kings’ Bench Walk North, London EC4Y 7HR

Stuart Peters Limited v Bell – the Norton Tool principle revisited

Two recent appellate decisions have fuelled the debate surrounding the tension between religious discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. However, they also have a more subtle aspect; they reignite the debate about where the line should be drawn between unreasonable behaviour and discrimination.This article examines the decisions in London Borough of Islington v Ladele UKEAT/0453/08 and English v Thomas Sanderson Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 1421 in this context.

The view from Littleton Chambers

3 Kings’ Bench Walk North, London EC4Y 7HR


It was always going to be an issue whether enhanced redundancy payments were lawful under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 notwithstanding the provisions of reg 33, which permits enhanced redundancy payments but only where the statutory scheme is mirrored as most enhanced schemes are more sophisticated than that. In particular, they contain tapering provisions which reduce the level of benefits where the employee reaches retirement age otherwise it is perceived that the retiring employee may get a windfall. Enhanced schemes were considered in three cases during 2008.

In the current economic climate, many organisations are facing troubled times and uncertainty about the future. Although this situation particularly affects private sector businesses, the squeeze on government funds also affects staffing levels in the public sector and has an impact on those organisations who supply goods and services to public bodies.

According to Experian, 16,591 businesses failed in the first nine months of 2008, business failures rising by 28 per cent in a three month period. Banks in particular have become ‘more aggressive’, with the number of receiverships, which are controlled by banks rather than company directors, rocketing 152 per cent this quarter compared with the same period last year.

UK statutory rights

One thing that often concerns businesses with connections to Great Britain is the extent to which their employees can bring claims for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’). The leading authority in this area is the 2006 House of Lords judgment in Lawson v Serco, in which Lord Hoffman formulated the following test: