ACAS Early Conciliation and Limitation Periods in the Employment Tribunal: How does it work?

Early Conciliation

Since 6th April 2014, before ‘relevant proceedings’ can be issued in an Employment Tribunal, prospective Claimants must first contact ACAS and provide them with certain basic information (referred to as ‘prescribed information’ to be given ‘in the prescribed manner’ (i.e. in accordance with the legislation)) to enable ACAS to explore the possibility of resolving the dispute by conciliation- Employment Tribunals Act (‘ETA’) 1996 section 18A(1) (inserted by Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 section 7(1)). This applies to all claims issued on or after 6th May 2014. Read more

Think big – go small

The press has been filled recently with the news that most new wind turbines are being called in by Mr Pickles, as Secretary of State, and refused and many seemed to think that the death knell was being sounded for wind power but it’s not so. Sure the bigger projects attract considerable opposition due to their widespread impact on the surrounding countryside but there is an increasing trend towards the smaller more locally sited turbines. Read more

Tenancy deposits, where are we now?

Practitioners will be aware that from 6th April 2007, the date on which the relevant provisions of the Housing Act 2004 came into effect, landlords have been required to safeguard their tenant’s deposit by the use of a government authorised tenancy deposit scheme. Those who have not complied face potential financial sanctions and have been unable to serve a section 21 notice so as to recover possession. Read more

Horizon Security Services Limited v Ndeze & PCS Group UKEAT/0071/14/JOJ

In the recent case of Horizon Security Services Limited v Ndeze & PCS Group UKEAT/0071/14/JOJ Andrew Worthley, a member of Magdalen Chambers’ team of Employment specialists, successfully appealed against a first instance decision relating to a TUPE transfer. Using the authority of Hunter v McCarrick [2013] IRLR 26, Mr Worthley successfully argued that there was no transfer because of the Respondent’s failure to plead and prove continuity of client.

Read more