The Supreme Court has confirmed that a Tribunal may find that the reason for the dismissal is something other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker – even where that reason is genuinely held by the decision maker. Gareth Price reports.

Gareth Price discusses reasonable adjustments and s.15 claims in light of Northumberland NHS v. Ward.

Susan Wolf sets what organisations should bear in mind when considering whether something is 'business as usual' or an FOI request.

A recent case reads as an object lesson in how not to make an application to the Court of Protection to authorise deprivation of liberty, writes Alex Ruck Keene.

Hayley Titchner outlines the main legal claims that employees suffering from work-related stress could pursue.

The Administrative Court has revisited the issue of the denial of social care support to persons subject to immigration control, and the line between local authority social care support under the Care Act 2014, and accommodation and support provided by the Home Office. Jonathan Auburn analyses the ruling.

A recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union should act as a reminder of the importance of adapting procurement to the needs of SMEs, writes Anja Beriro.

The Court of Appeal recently overturned a High Court ruling and found that a claimant could serve an out of jurisdiction application against Google as part of a class action. Ibrahim Hasan examines the judgment.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) recently decided not to pursue a duty of candour case against an NHS trust due to a lack of evidence. Sarah Knight looks at the lessons to be learned.

Alastair Currie looks at the question of when it could be said that an employee’s belief that a disclosure is in the public interest is reasonable within the meaning of whistleblowing legislation.

A Christian doctor was recently dismissed for refusing to address transgender patients by their chosen pronoun. Nadjia Zychowicz reports on the Employment Tribunal’s subsequent ruling.

Hope Davis-McCallion examines how the Court of Protection approached deciding whether a woman had capacity to make decisions about the management of her diabetes.