3PB Employment Barrister Katherine Anderson examines the implications of Peninsula v Baker on employer liability for acts of victimisation
13th April 2017
Katherine Anderson examines if an employer can escape “scot-free” from liability for an act of victimisation if it is ‘astute enough’ to instruct an innocent third party – or employee - to carry it out.
Please click here to read Katherine’s analysis.
Related News
-
3PB Barristers (3 Paper Buildings) breaks another record in the latest edition of Chambers and Partners with a total of 96 rankings (81 last year) achieved by 80 of its barristers. The national set is rewarded with accolades in 21 areas of law, in the London Bar as well as in the North Eastern, South Eastern, Western and Midlands Circuits and exceptional comments for its expertise and service delivery. Click here to view the full...
Continue reading -
3 Paper Buildings (3PB) is delighted to announce that leading barrister and silk Rachel Best KC (2006 call) has joined chambers as an associate member. Rachel specialises in employment and discrimination disputes, judicial reviews, inquests and personal injury cases. She was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2006, the Bar of Ireland in 2021 and was called to the Bar of England & Wales in 2022. She was promoted to Silk in 2024....
Continue reading -
3PB barristers and its Employment and Discrimination team have cause for celebration as they are confirmed as a top tier team in the Western and South Eastern Circuits in the latest Legal 500 edition. Praised by clients as “‘an excellent set’ with an employment team ‘packed full of top-tier barristers’ and an excellent track record for advising across the full spectrum of employment law matters”, 3PB is regarded as “‘a chambers with a wide skill...
Continue reading -
The Employment Tribunal has dismissed a claim against a local authority brought by an 'as and when' or 'sessional' social worker. The respondent, Harrow Council, hired the claimant on a casual basis and worked on a variety of projects over a period of 11 years for the youth justice team. The respondent accepted that the claimant was a 'worker' but denied that he had become an 'employee', entitled to bring a claim for constructive dismissal following a...
Continue reading
