IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v54y2025i1p149-160..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a More Conventional Approach: Article 10 and Unfair Dismissal in England

Author

Listed:
  • James Murray

Abstract

This case note considers the case of Aghajanyan v Armenia and gives comment on how it impacts protection for Article 10 Convention rights in the context of the employment relationship, with particular focus on how it might impact the development of the English law of unfair dismissal in the context of both current and future law. The note highlights that Aghajanyan reinforces the robust Article 10 protection for certain types of expression within the employment relationship, notwithstanding any countervailing contractual obligations or duties which a speaker has to their employer, and outlines the analytical approach which the Strasbourg court will expect of national courts and tribunals with respect to applying a proportionality analysis when dismissal is consider (which, in the context of English unfair dismissal law, overlays the test of reasonableness which is specified by statute). The concept of an Article 10 ersatz whistleblower is also considered, namely whether the application of a Convention proportionality test, actually creates a middle ground of enhanced protection for those raising matters of public interest but don’t meet the strict tests under English law for formal statutory protection as whistleblowers. It will conclude that English tribunals’ rather inconsistent approach to Article 10 protection in the context of unfair dismissal is ripe for review in line with Aghajanyan, and that now is particularly appropriate time for such a review given the expansion of the unfair dismissal right under English law.

Suggested Citation

  • James Murray, 2025. "Towards a More Conventional Approach: Article 10 and Unfair Dismissal in England," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 54(1), pages 149-160.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:1:p:149-160.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae052
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:1:p:149-160.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.