The authors would suggest, however, that such treatment of the Performance Standards is simply out of date and ignores the overlap and interrelation between the Performance Standards and
legal standards of behaviour touching on the same topics.
Alhough Zuchtvieh has thus far not generated a similar protest, it does change the
standard international
legal conversation about jurisdiction, pushing an expanded understanding
of who can and should regulate the
behaviour of cross-border economic activities.
We have seen the Court
of Appeal's rejection
of the appeal in the case
of British Airways and the employee wanting to wear a cross necklace in defiance
of the company's dress code (Eweida v BA plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80, [2010] All ER (D) 144 (Feb)-RRB- and also that court's decision in the Buckland case which was widely reported in the press in terms
of «Professor wins case about dumbing down university degrees» but which was
of much greater
legal significance for ridding the law on constructive dismissal
of the heresy that the range
of reasonable responses test applies to such dismissals, under which the ex-employee could only succeed in showing constructive dismissal if he could prove that the employer's
behaviour was so bad that no reasonable employer could possibly have behaved in that way, ie that the employer had not just behaved as too much
of an Alan (B'Stard) but as a grade one Olympic
standard Alan (Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121, [2010] All ER (D) 299 (Feb)-RRB-.