Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:19:07.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The law of unfair dismissal and behaviour outside work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Astrid Sanders
Astrid Sanders*
Affiliation:
Birmingham Law School
*
Dr Astrid Sanders, Lecturer in Law, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four of the better-known unfair dismissal cases involve dismissals of employees for behaviour outside work. All four of those dismissals were held to be ‘fair’. This paper looks afresh at the subject matter of dismissals for behaviour outside work. It will argue, first, that employment tribunals should apply a separate framework to dismissals for behaviour outside work and not just apply the normal framework that is designed for dismissals for behaviour at work. Secondly, the paper will construct this separate framework to apply to dismissals for extramural behaviour. It will be argued that there should henceforth be a presumption that dismissals for behaviour outside work will be unfair unless the employer has a strong reason for thinking that the extramural behaviour of the employee will damage the business of the employer. The purpose of this paper is to suggest legal reasons for change to this area of unfair dismissal law as an addition to previously discussed normative reasons for change. In particular, the paper will develop the analogy between unfair dismissal cases on behaviour outside work and breach of personal confidence cases since the Human Rights Act 1998.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 328 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the SLS Annual Conference in 2010. I am grateful to participants for their comments. I am grateful also to anonymous reviewers for their comments, and to Professor ACL Davies, Dr David Salmons and Prof Sonia Harris-Short for comments on an earlier draft.

References

Notes

1. X v Y [2004] Ewca Civ 662, [2004] ICR 1634 [59].

2. [1980] IRLR 174 (EAT).

3. [1989] IRLR 512 (EAT).

4. [2003] ICR 1138 (EAT) (and decision by CA, above n 2).

5. [2004] ICR 187 (EAT).

6. Saunders, above n 3, at [4].

7. See description by Brooke LJ in X, above n 2, at [74]–[82].

8. Originally, Industrial Relations Act 1971, s 24(6).

9. EAT in all four cases (above, nn 6) and, additionally, CS in Saunders ([1981] IRLR 277) and, additionally, CA in X, above n 2. See also Pay v UK [2009] IRLR 139 (ECtHR).

10. A McColgan ‘Do privacy rights disappear in the workplace?’ [2003] EHRLR (Special Issue: Privacy) 120; Freedland M ‘Privacy, employment and the Human Rights Act 1998’ in Ziegler K (ed) Human Rights and Private Law (Oxford: Hart, 2007) p 150.

11. [2000] ICR 1283 (CA).

12. X, above n 2, at [49].

13. ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’ The Strasbourg Court has repeatedly referred to the ‘breadth’ of Art 8(1): see eg Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 1 [61].

14. ArdenM ‘Human rights and civil wrongs: tort law under the spotlight’ [2010] PL 140, 153.

15. [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457.

16. [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2009] Ch 481 (CA). Murray was named as one of the leading cases on breach of personal confidence by the HC in CTB v NGN [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB) [21].

17. A v B [2002] EWCA Civ 337, [2003] QB 195; Theakston [2002] EWHC 137 (QB), [2002] EMLR 22. These cases were referred to by the EAT, above n 5, at [40]; and by the CA, above n 2, at [70]–[71].

18. See eg Maltby, L and Dushman, B ‘Whose life is it anyway – employer control of off-duty behaviour’ (1994) 13 St Louis U Pub L Rev 645;Google Scholar Dworkin, T ‘It's my life – leave me alone’ (1997) 35 Am Bus L J 47;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. See eg Craig, J Privacy and Employment Law (Oxford: Hart, 1999);Google Scholar Ford, M ‘Two conceptions of worker privacy’ (2002) 31 ILJ 135;CrossRefGoogle Scholar McColgan, above n 10; Freedland, above n 10; V Mantouvalou Human rights and unfair dismissal: private acts and public spaces (2008) MLR 912.

20. For example, Finkin, above n 19, refers to Ciulla, J The Working Life: The Promise and Betrayal of Modern Work (New York: Crown Business, 2001)Google Scholar and Mantouvalou, above n 20, refers to C Fried ‘Privacy’ in Schoeman, Fd (ed) Philosophical Dimensions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Judges might not necessarily accept philosophical arguments in any event: see, seemingly, the rejection of the philosophy of Mill by Lady Hale in R (Countryside Alliance) v A-G [2007] UKHL 52, [2008] 1 AC 719 [111]–[116] and the rejection of the philosophy of Mill by the DC in R(G) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2009] PTSR 218 [100].

22. See eg Maltby and Dushman, above n 19; Dworkin, above n 19; Pagnattaro, above n 19, at 627; Freedland, above n 11.

23. EAT, above n 3, at [5].

24. Sugarman, SD ‘Lifestyle discrimination in employment’ (2003) 24 Berkeley J Emp & Lab L 377, 380.Google Scholar

25. Maltby and Dushman, above n 19, at 646.

26. Much of the (additional) US literature is in response to these statutes. See eg Pagnattaro, above n 19, at 640–670; Howie, R and Shapero, A ‘Lifestyle discrimination statutes’ (2005) 31 Emp Rel L J 21;Google Scholar Rives, A ‘You're not the boss of me’ (2006) 74 Geo Wash L Rev 553.Google Scholar

27. See eg South Carolina Code Annotated §41-1-85.

28. See eg Wisconsin Statutes Annotated §111.31.

29. See eg New York Labor Law §201-d.

30. ACLU ‘Legislative briefing kit: lifestyle discrimination in the workplace’ (31 December 1998), available at http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_womens-rights/legislative-briefing-kit-lifestyle-discrimination-workplace (accessed 7 September 2012); Maltby and Dushman, above n 26; Dworkin, above n 19; Rives, above n 27. Cf Howie and Shapero, above n 27, at 35.

31. Maltby and Dushman, above n 26.

32. See eg Stephens v Halfords ET/1700796/2010 (3 November 2010); Preece v Wetherspoon ET/2104806/10 (2 February 2011); Whitham v Club 24 ET/1810462/2010 (3 June 2011); Crisp v Apple Retail ET/1500258/11 (15 August 2011); Teggart v TeleTech ET704/11 (15 December 2011).

33. Ibid and see eg Lerwill v Aston Villa FC ET/1304758/10 (25 February 2011) (comments on ‘unofficial fanzine forum’). For a wrongful dismissal case (as opposed to an unfair dismissal case), see Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3221 (Ch).

34. Maltby and Dushman, above n 19; Sugarman, above n 25, at 382–393; Pagnattaro, above n 19, at 677–680. On vicarious liability, see DavidsonJe ‘Reconciling the tension between employer liability and employee privacy’ (1998) 8 Geo Mason U CR L J 145.

35. Payne v Western Atlantic Railroad (1884) 81 Tenn 507, 518. See, generally, Howie and Shapero, above n 27.

36. Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods [1999] ICR 1150 [25], [29]. (Cf Foley, above n 12, 1292.)

37. See section 4 of this paper.

38. X, above n 2.

39. See above n 21.

40. NMW Regs 1999, reg 14. See Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Leisure Employment Services [2006] ICR 1094 [13].

41. [1946] Ch 169, 174.

42. Maltby and Dushman, above n 19, at 659.

43. Directive 2003/88/EC. On 14 November 2011, the European social partners agreed to start negotiations to (try again to) revise the Directive under Arts 154–155 TFEU.

44. See eg C-303/98 Simap v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valencia [2001] ICR 116 [47].

45. C-151/02 [2004] IRLR 1528 [94].

46. [2004] EWCA Civ 1559, [2005] ICR 673 [47]–[50]. Jaeger was about ‘rest periods’ (between finishing one day's work and starting the next) rather than ‘rest breaks’ (during the working day).

47. Jaeger, above n 46, at [92]. See C-173/99 R (BECTU) v SoS for Trade and Industry [2001] ICR 1152 [37].

48. Above n 22.

49. Ibid, [139]. See also [90]–[101].

50. Ibid, [97]–[98], [139]–[140].

51. Ibid, [97].

52. Article 8 either protects leisure time activities that are ‘integral’ to one's identity ([101]) or protects integral and non-integral activities when carried out for one's own enjoyment only ([102]–[107]).

53. Ibid, [101], [139]–[141].

54. Ibid, [15], [54]–[55], [116].

55. Friend v UK (2010) 50 EHRR SE6.

56. The CA in R(N) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWCA Civ 795 described the judgments of Lord Bingham and Baroness Hale as the ‘majority’ in Countryside Alliance: see [37].

57. Friend, above n 56, at [42].

58. Above n 31.

59. Selmi, M ‘Privacy for the working class: public work and private lives’ (2006) 66 La L Rev 1035, 1046–1047.Google Scholar

60. Ibid.

61. Quoted in Pasch v Katz 10 IER Cases 1574 (SDNY, 8 August 1995).

62. Davidson, above n 35 (specifically quote at 147).

63. [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215.

64. [2010] EWCA Civ 256, [2010] 1 WLR 1441.

65. [2012] EWCA Civ 938.

66. [2012] UKSC 56.

67. Even under the wider doctrine of statutory vicarious liability (see Jones v Tower Boot [1997] IRLR 168 (CA) [42]–[43]) in the Equality Act 2010 s 109, it is unlikely there will be vicarious liability for behaviour outside work: Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1997] IRLR 589 (CA) [82]; Chief Constable of the Lincolnshire Police v Stubbs [1999] IRLR 81 (EAT) [44].

68. Lister, above n 64; see also Weddall v Barchester Health [2012] EWCA Civ 25, [2012] IRLR 307.

69. Lister (ibid). Lord Clyde cited, as an example, Deatons Pty v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370 (HCA).

70. Confirmed in Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2011] EWCA Civ 1190, [2012] IRLR 64 [32]–[33].

71. Pay, above n 6, at [35].

72. Lister, above n 64, at [28]; Maga, above n 65, at [44], [55]. See also Bernard v A-G of Jamaica [2004] UKPC 47, [2005] IRLR 398 [21].

73. Catholic Child Welfare Society, above n 67, at [63].

74. Saunders, above n 3; P [1992] IRLR 362 (CA); A v B [2010] IRLR 844 (EAT). The CA in Leach [2012] EWCA Civ 959 upheld the EAT's decision in A (and also removed A's anonymity).

75. Lister, above n 64, at [62], [82]; Maga, above n 65, at [74].

76. Ibid.

77. No such allegations had been made against the employee in Saunders, above n 3, at [2].

78. A, above n 75, at [31]. The SC in Catholic Child Welfare Society, above n 67, at [74], [86]–[87], approved of Lord Millett's reasoning in Lister, above n 64, at [65].

79. See eg discussion of ‘reputational risk’ in Leach, above n 75 (EAT and CA).

80. TULRCA 1992, s 207.

81. Para 30.

82. Ibid.

83. ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2004 [43].

84. ACAS ‘Discipline and grievances at work: the Acas Guide’ (April 2011) 36.

85. Cassidy v Goodman [1975] IRLR 86 [9]; Sánchez [2012] 54 EHRR 24 [75].

86. [2011] EWCA Civ 62; [2011] ICR 704 [11], [39], [93], ‘Appendix’.

87. Boychuk [1977] IRLR 395 (EAT) [5]; Redfearn [2006] EWCA Civ 659, [2006] ICR 1367 [10] (the qualifying period under ERA 1996 s 108 in cases of dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation was subsequently found to breach Art 11 in Redfearn v UK [2013] IRLR 51). See also Smith v Safeway [1995] IRLR 312 [20]–[21] (cf [1996] IRLR 456 (CA) [14]).

88. Ibid.

89. Cassidy, above n 86; Bernard [1979] IRLR 220 (EAT) [12].

90. Ibid, [25]–[40].

91. Beedell v West Ferry Printers [2000] IRLR 650 [19] (and cases cited therein).

92. Whitbread v Hall [2001] ICR 699 (CA); Sainsbury's v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588; [2003] ICR 111.

93. [1982] IRLR 439 (EAT) [24].

94. [1981] IRLR 91 (CA) [11].

95. Watling v Richardson [1978] IRLR 255 (EAT) [17] (approved in Iceland, above n 94, at [25]).

96. Swift, above n 95, at [11], [17] and ibid.

97. Above nn 97 and 94.

98. Foley, above n 12, at [53].

99. Saunders, above n 3, at [9]. See also Nottinghamshire CC v Bowly [1978] IRLR 252 (EAT) [16].

100. See eg Collins, H Justice in Dismissal (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) pp 37–40;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Freer, A ‘The Rorr test – from guidelines to statute’ (1998) 27 ILJ 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

101. Above n 37.

102. Ibid.

103. See eg Foley, above n 12; London Ambulance Service v Small [2009] EWCA Civ 220, [2009] IRLR 563; Hitt, above n 93; Orr, above n 87; Graham v JobCentre Plus [2012] EWCA Civ 903, [2012] IRLR 759.

104. X, above n 5, at [44].

105. Thomson v Alloa Motor Co [1983] IRLR 403 (EAT) [5].

106. Harper v NCB [1980] IRLR 260 (EAT) [8].

107. Saunders, above n 100.

108. Mathewson, above n 4; O'Flynn v Airlinks EAT/0269/01 (15 March 2002); Focus DIY v Nicholson EAT/225/94 (13 March 1995).

109. Gardiner v Newport County BC [1974] IRLR 262 (IT); Bowly, above n 100; Wiseman v Salford CC [1981] IRLR 202 (EAT); X, above n 5.

110. Leach, above n 75. (P, above n 75, was remitted for rehearing to a different tribunal.)

111. Moore v C&A Modes [1981] IRLR 71 (EAT).

112. Spiller v Wallis [1975] IRLR 362 (IT).

113. Smith and Grady v UK (1999) 29 EHRR 493; X, above n 5; Pay, above n 6.

114. Foley, above n 12; Draper v Mears EAT/0174/06/ZT (5 September 2006).

115. Gosden v Lifeline Project ET/2802731/2009 (27 July 2010) (email); Preece, above n 33; Crisp, above n 33; Teggart, above n 33.

116. Statutory protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was added in 2003 (Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regs 2003). (See now Equality Act 2012 s 4 and s 12.)

117. For example, an IRS survey from 2006 found that one third of employers in the UK had a policy on workplace relationships (IRS Employment Review, Issue 851).

118. Cases listed as ‘fair’ dismissals at n 115; ‘unfair’ dismissals in Stephens, above n 33; Lerwill, above n 33; Whitham, above n 33.

119. Graham, above n 104, at [1], [61].

120. See eg Cassidy, above n 86; Bradshaw v Rugby Portland Cement [1972] IRLR 46a (IT); Bell v The Devon & Cornwall Police Authority [1978] IRLR 283 (IT); Bernard, above n 90.

121. Five years was too soon to estimate the impact of the HRA on employment law for Collins, H ‘The protection of civil liberties in the workplace’ (2006) 66 MLR 619).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

122. Liddiard [2001] EWCA Civ 940 [20]; Leach, above n 75, at [57].

123. Non-engagement of Art 8 in X, above n 5, and in Pay, above n 6; non-engagement of Art 8 in Internet cases (Gosden, above n 116; Crisp, above n 33; Teggart, above n 33); non-engagement of Art 9 for Mummery LJ in Copsey v WWB Devon Clays [2005] EWCA Civ 932, [2005] ICR 1789. Cf engagement of Art 10 in Pay, above n 6, and (assumption of engagement) in Henderson v Hackney LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 1518.

124. Collins, above n 122, at 630–631.

125. Leach, above n 75, at [59].

126. [2012] EWCA Civ 1470 [56]–[58].

127. Smith, above n 114, at [137]–[139].

128. Above n 86, at [29], [75], [77]. See also the judgment by the ECtHR in Fuentes Bobo v Spain (2001) 31 EHRR 50.

129. See X, above n 3. For development of breach of confidence prior to the HRA, see A-G v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] AC 109 HL.

130. [2001] QB 967 (CA). Compare [91] and [166] with [111].

131. Employment tribunals and courts are ‘public authorities’ subject to s 6(1) under s 6(3) HRA 1998.

132. Above n 131.

133. See Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 and subsequent summary of Ghaidan in Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264 [28].

134. Ghaidan (ibid) [59].

135. However, this ‘potential’ is dependent on the engagement of Art 8 (Poplar Housing v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] QB 48, 72). On the (strong) possibility of this ‘potential’, see section 7.

136. Douglas, above n 131, at [111].

137. Thus, these cases raise the ‘disputed’ (X, above n 2, at [43]) or ‘controversial’ (Campbell, above n 16, at [18]) question whether, or to what extent, the HRA ‘applies as between private individuals’ (X, above n 2, at [43]).

138. NA Moreham suggests that there are five different sub-categories of Art 8 cases on private life (‘The right to respect for private life in the ECHR: a re-examination’ [2008] EHRLR 44).

139. Mosley [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20.

140. In comparison to, for example, the leading workplace surveillance cases (Halford v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 523 (ECtHR; Copland v UK (2007) 45 EHRR 37 (ECtHR)). Interestingly, the workplace surveillance cases use the same criteria of a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ (Halford [45] and Copland [42]).

141. See A Schreiber's distinction between breach of confidence (as dissemination of information) and privacy (as intrusion, without necessarily dissemination) (‘Confidence crisis, privacy phobia’ (2006) IPQ 160, 181–182). See also related distinctions mentioned in Goodwin v NGN [2011] EWHC 1437 (QB), [2011] EMLR 27 [85] and Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355 (QB) [82].

142. Pretty, above n 14.

143. Campbell, above n 16, at [50]–[51]; see also Mosley, above n 140, at [7], [214].

144. Collins, above n 101, pp 16–21; (cf PittG ‘A reply to Hugh Collins’ (1993) 22 ILJ 251, 254–256).

145. X, above n 5, EAT [40]; X, above n 2, at [70]–[71].

146. Above n 18.

147. This development is associated with Campbell, above n 16. In comparison, the CA in A v B, above n 18, still used the language of a ‘confidential relationship’ at [11](ix) (compare Campbell at [14]) and did not cite any ECtHR cases (compare McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714, [2008] QB 73 [11], [63]).

148. Campbell, above n 16, at [14]; see Mosley, above n 140, at [181]–[182].

149. CTB (or Giggs), above n 17.

150. Above n 148, at [62], [64].

151. Ntuli v Donald [2010] EWCA Civ 1276, [2011] 1 WLR 294 [10]; K v NGN [2011] EWCA Civ 439, [2011] 1 WLR 1827 [10]; Hutcheson v NGN [2011] EWCA Civ 808, [2012] EMLR 2 [7].

152. K (ibid) (see also McKennitt, above n 148). See Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers [2006] EWCA Civ 1776, [2008] Ch 57 [65] and Campbell, above n 16, at [85]–[86], [168] on language of ‘weighing’.

153. In re S [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593 [17].

154. Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1 [76] (repeated domestically in Ntuli, above n 152, at [20] and K, above n 152, at [5], [23] and subsequently reaffirmed by the ECtHR in Von Hannover (No 2) (2012) 55 EHRR 15 (Grand Chamber) and Axel Springer v Germany (2012) 55 EHRR 6 (Grand Chamber)).

155. Ibid, [64]–[65]; Mosley v UK (2011) 53 EHRR 30 [114]. For application of this contrast, see eg Standard Verlags v Austria (No 2) App 21227/05 (ECtHR, 4 September 2009); K, above n 152, at [20]–[23].

156. Mosley ECtHR (ibid); Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359 [147] (see Jameel generally on ‘public interest’ at [31], [49], [147]).

157. Joint Committee on Injunctions, Privacy and Privacy and Injunctions (2010–2012, HL 273, HC 1443) [30]–[32]. ( Ferdinand v MGN [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB) was cited as an example at q405).

158. Lord Hope and Lady Hale described Campbell as a ‘celebrity’ (above n 16, at [120], [126], [143]).

159. Above n 18, at 208.

160. [2002] EWCA Civ 1373, [2003] QB 633 [41]; HL, above n 16, at [57], [120], [151].

161. Ferdinand, above n 158, at [87]–[90]; Lindblom J in McClaren [2012] EWHC 2466 (QB) [34]. (Note the overlap in language between paragraph 34 of McClaren and A v B, above n 160).

162. Cf Mosley, above n 140, at [216] and [236]. However, see Campbell v MGN [2002] EWHC 499 (QB), [2002] EMLR 30 [138]–[139].

163. Buirski, P ‘Draft labour relations bill 1995’ (1995) 16 ILJ (Juta) 529, 542.Google Scholar Cf Mosley, above n 140 (award of £60,000) and discussion in Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 239 (QB) [26].

164. See Spelman, above n 142, at [114]. However, also see Mosley, above n 140, at [212].

165. The HC awarded £15,000 in damages recently in AAA v Associated Newspapers [2012] EWHC 2103 (QB) (in comparison to £3500 for Campbell and £5000 for McKennitt). Moreover, in many of the breach of personal confidence cases, the remedy sought is an interim injunction and not damages.

166. Above n 146.

167. An exception would be where the employee is employed by a Church and the Church invokes countervailing Art 9 and/or Art 11 rights: see Obst v Germany App 425/03 (ECtHR, 23 September 2010); Schüth v Germany App 1630/03 (ECtHR, 23 September 2010); Siebenhaar v Germany App 18136/02 (ECtHR, 3 February 2011); Fernandez Martinez v Spain App 56030/07 (ECtHR, 15 May 2012).

168. Above n 122, at 630.

169. A v B, above n 18, at 204–205 (see also endorsement of related parts of A v B in AAA, above n 166, at [52]).

170. Mosley, above n 140, at [236]; Pay, above n 10, at [36].

171. Campbell, above n 16, at [33] and above n 163, at [141].

172. See eg McKennitt, above n 148, at [15] and Murray, above n 17, at [20]. Description of ‘re-affirmation’ in Spelman, above n 142, at [49].

173. Above n 155, at [63].

174. Von Hannover (No 2), above n 155, at [102].

175. Von Hannover, above n 155, at [65], [76].

176. Mosley, above n 140, at [131] (quoted, amongst others, in Goodwin, above n 142, at [62]).

177. Above n 173, at [109]. See also the contemporaneous finding of a violation of Art 10 in Axel Springer, above n 155.

178. Ntuli, above n 152, at [19] (and see CA at [23]).

179. Campbell, above n 16, at [157]. For an example, see Standard Verlags (No 2), above n 156.

180. Above n 158, at [91].

181. Above n 142, at [103].

182. See above n 121.

183. Campbell, above n 16, at [21] (quoted subsequently, eg in McKennitt, above n 148, at [11] and Murray, above n 17, at [24]–[26]). On the possible breadth of Von Hannover, see discussion by Patten J in Murray v Express Newspapers [2007] EWHC 1908 (Ch) [43]–[59], [65]–[66] and compare Murray, above n 17, CA [56].

184. R (Gillan) v Commr of Police for Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12, [2006] 2 AC 307 [28]; R (Wood) v Commr for Police for Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414, [2010] 1 WLR 123 [22]–[23]; M v SoS for Work and Pensions [2006] UKHL 11, [2006] 2 AC 91 [83].

185. Wood (ibid) [26]–[28]. See Murray, above n 184, HC [57] (cf McKennitt, above n 148, at [12]).

186. Pay, above n 6, at [36] and X, above n 2, at [61]. (In any case, the ECtHR was prepared to assume that Art 8(1) was engaged in the (unsuccessful) admissibility decision in Pay, above n 10, at 25. See also Mantouvalou, above n 20).

187. Hence the well-known statement by Baroness Hale in Campbell, above n 16, at [154].

188. S, above n 154.

189. However, see above n 168.

190. Sánchez, above n 86; Fuentes, above n 129, at [49] (and Pay, above n 10, at 26).

191. Craig, P ‘Proportionality, rationality and review’ [2010] NZ L Rev 265.Google Scholar

192. Orr, above n 87, at [49].

193. BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379 (EAT). On failed attempts to read additional requirements into the first stage, see Saunders, above n 3, EAT [7]; Harper, above n 107; Beedell, above n 92, at [56]–[69]; Foley, above n 12, at [10].

194. Boychuk, above n 88, at [8]; Campbell EAT/914/92 (1 October 1993) at 3–5.

195. Hurley v Mustoe [1981] IRLR 208 (EAT) [19].

196. See eg Grootcon v Keld [1984] IRLR 302 (EAT).

197. Pay, above n 6, at [30].

198. Above n 168. The Strasbourg Court found a violation of Art 8 in Schüth, but held that there was no violation of Art 8 in Obst and Fernandez Martinez. It held there was no violation of the employee's Art 9 right in Siebenhaar (the employee and employer both invoked Art 9 in Siebenhaar).

199. Siebenhaar, above n 168, at [45]; Obst, above n 168, at [48]–[51]; Schüth, above n 168, at [69].

200. Saunders, above n 3, at [3], [7], [10]; Pay, above n 6, at [22].

201. Saunders, above n 3, at [3]; Pay, above n 171.

202. Mathewson, above n 4, at [8].

203. Ibid.

204. Ibid, [2], [8]–[9].

205. Even though there is now a neutral burden of proof at s 98(4), employers ‘must’ still lead evidence at least in misconduct cases (Farrant v Woodroffe School [1998] IRLR 176 (EAT) [58]).

206. See discussion of ‘linguistic construction’ by Collins, above n 101.

207. Above n 145.

208. Ibid.

209. See eg Pretty, above n 14 (with accompanying references).

210. Above n 2, at [64]. Aikens LJ in Orr, above n 87, described s 98 as ‘encrusted’ with case law ([78]).

211. X, above n 5, at [34], [44]; Pay, above n 6, at [32]–[35].

212. Nor would the Equality Act 2010 necessarily help employees dismissed for behaviour outside work linked to a ‘protected characteristic’ (s 4). See Saunders, above n 10, CS [2]; X, above n 5, EAT [42], CA [15].

213. Howie and Shapero, above n 31; Pagnattaro, above n 19, at 643. On the exclusion of ‘romantic dating’ as a matter of ‘logic, language, legislative history and case law’ from New York Labour Law §201-d, see McCavitt v Swiss Reinsurance America 237 F3d 166 (2nd Cir 2001) 168.