Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


Unison did workers and the whole employment law world a great favour, a mitzvah, by successfully challenging fees. Most employment lawyers and HR people recognise, objectively, the great strides forward ECJ case law provides, with commensurate advancement of the statutory rights involved. The latest example being King v Sash Window Workshop whereby employers who don't provide statutory holiday rights find it carries forward without limit until termination.
But is it right to say "While not bound by any principle or decision made by the ECJ after Brexit, clause 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill requires that UK judges continue to interpret domestic law so far as is possible in line with ECJ jurisprudence"? The Bill clauses are incredibly complex. But clause 6 appears to include a broad discretion: "A court or tribunal need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court, another EU entity or the EU but may do so if it considers it appropriate to do so." Thereby ending the decades old purposive constructive obligation and substituting it with a discretion.

Your details