David Renton The Human Rights Convention and the Tribunal. The European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the European Convention provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
The Human Rights Convention and the Tribunal
The European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8 of the European Convention provides that:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Halford v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 523
There is no evidence of any warning having been given to Ms Halford, as a user of the internal telecommunications system operated at the Merseyside police headquarters, that calls made on that system would be liable to interception. She would, the Court considers have had a reasonable expectation of privacy for such calls …
Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom  IRLR 568
It is of the essence of the right to join a trade union for the protection of their interests that employees should be free to instruct or permit the union to make representations to their employer or to take action in support of their interests on their behalf. If workers are prevented from so doing, their freedom to belong to a trade union, for the protection of their interests, becomes illusory. It is the role of the State to ensure that trade union members are not prevented or restrained from using their union to represent them in attempt to regulate their relations with employers.
X v Y  IRLR 625
“In private employment disputes, the employment tribunal, so far as it is possible to do so, must read and give effect to s98 and the other relevant provisions in Part X of the ERA in a way which is compatible with the Convention right in article 8 and article 14”
Copsey v Devon Clays  IRLR 811
“Courts do not have access to the same range of expertise or to the same consultative procedures as legislation. Neither judges nor lawyers have relevant knowledge or experience. The adversarial trial processes in the courts and tribunals are not suited to deciding questions of this kind.”
Onu v Akwiwu and another  IRLR 523, EAT per Langstaff J
If, contrary to our primary view that the Act renders post-termination victimisation actionable, Mr. Dutton’s arguments that “employer” means the same in Section 39 for both direct discrimination and victimisation, and must (on his approach to Section 108) mean “current employer” (since the fact that Section 108 is necessary to provide for relationships which are ended indicates that, without the Section, there would be no liability) had sufficient force to cast real doubt on the correct domestic interpretation of the statute, there would nonetheless be sufficient ambiguity about the proper meaning of the statute to require resort to the “Marleasing” approach.
We could not conclude, as Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza  2 AC 557 mentions, that to interpret the act as we do would be contrary to the grain of the legislation. The whole legislation is designed to prohibit discrimination in many contexts. It regards victimisation as reprehensible. The grain of the legislation is in favour of the approach we would support.