Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Blogs & opinions
  4. When is a protected conversation truly protected?

When is a protected conversation truly protected?

9th August 2016 | employment

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that the strict privacy rules that prevent employment tribunals being advised of “protected conversations”, apply to the fact that they have taken place as to the content. The new status for communication between parties was introduced by s 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and applies only to complaints of unfair dismissal.

The provision was intended to make it easier for employers to discuss the termination of employment with an employee without those discussions prejudicing a complaint of unfair dismissal if agreement could not be reached.

In Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP v Bailey (UKEAT/0025/16/RN) Judge Eady confirmed the absolute privilege conferred by statute on such conversations, with one exception. The exception is where a party can be shown to have behaved “improperly”, for example by making threats, or other similar behaviour. The protection extends to an employer’s prior internal discussions, for example between managers and HR,

The claimant, Ms Bailey, was a secretary employed by a firm of surveyors. She brought claims of constructive dismissal and indirect sex discrimination. There had been both “protected conversations”, and “without prejudice” communications. The judge noted that the “without prejudice” privilege would only attach to communications that represented a genuine attempt to resolve matters without further litigation, and could be waived by the parties.

The case is important to those dealing with the right to have wholly private discussions with a view to an amicable settlement.

A guide to the s 111A provisions can be found by clicking here.

 

 

Add To Favorites
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited