When someone declares a “victory for common sense”, we all understand that what they really mean is that they agree with whatever outcome they are applauding. So who will disagree with the outcome of Morgan v the Welsh Rugby Union, reported here by PM? Clearly Morgan will, as he lost, but won’t most HR practitioners welcome an EAT decision that keeps the door open for some subjectivity in selection decisions, which we all recognise can be complex? I’m not sure they will.

This is how the PM report concludes:

"The EAT said … that an employer's assessment of which candidate will perform best in a new role is likely to involve a degree of subjective judgment. The employer was entitled to interview and appoint a candidate who did not precisely meet the job specification."

So, is this a victory for common sense – or a worrying removal of the previous certainty on which so much recruitment practice is built? Safety normally resides in careful process, thorough job descriptions and strict rules for interview panels: if subjectivity is allowed, surely it will all end in tears?

As you understood from my opening comment, my vote is for “common sense” – because I think the purpose of any selection process is to get the best person for the job, and I’ve always railed against constraints which get in my way in aiming for that objective. But “common sense” in this case looks like a tougher path to tread. Most people will stick with safety first, won’t they?