Andrew MacPhail analyses the CoA's decision in Gwynedd Council v S Barratt & I Hughes [2021] EWCA Civ 1322, which provides a reminder to employers to take particular care before declining to follow best practice on key matters such as consultation on redundancy and the provision of an appeal process, even if it considers that such steps would be futile.
View ArticleSearch Results for: CSCM-001 PDF 🐃 CSCM-001 Lernhilfe 🧦 CSCM-001 Buch 🦺 Suchen Sie auf der Webseite ⇛ www.itzert.com ⇚ nach { CSCM-001 } und laden Sie es kostenlos herunter 🎐CSCM-001 Probesfragen
Naomi Webber reviews R (Cornerstone) v Ofsted [2021] EWCA Civ 1390, a case considering whether a requirement for foster parents to be in heterosexual marriages on religious grounds was discriminatory.
View ArticleDaniel Brown reviews P2CG Limited v Davis (Appeal No. EA-2019-000762-AT), a judgment that provides useful guidance as to the matters to be considered when an allegation is not put to a witness in court.
View ArticleAlex Leonhardt reviews A v Burke & Hare (EA-2020-SCO-0000067-DT), a case in which the EAT concludes that applications for anonymity orders need to be supported by robust evidence on harm that will arise to the party, going beyond mere embarrassment or social opprobrium, with evidence of impact on labour market outcomes potentially considered relevant and sufficient.
View ArticleGrace Boorer analyses Agbeze v Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust EA-2020-000413-VP, in which the EAT found that where a worker’s contract requires something more than being ready, willing and able to work in order to receive wages, a term is not implied that the worker is entitled to be paid on suspension in absence of a contractual provision on the point.
View ArticleGrace Nicholls on Rooney v Leicester City Council UKEAT/0064/20/DA and UKEAT/0104/21/DA, a case which reminds us that fact sensitive cases be dealt with with extra care and caution to prevent unnecessary delay and ensure effective, efficient conduct of litigation.
View ArticleGareth Graham reviews Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1694, in which the Court of Appeal provides a useful reminder that any assessment as to whether a person with an episodic condition is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act must be carried out by way of careful analysis of all the evidence.
View ArticleKaren Moss analyses the EAT's decision in London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Keable EA-2019-000733-DA / EA-2020-000129-DA, a case in which the EAT issues useful procedural advice in relation to conduct dismissals and employee reinstatement.
View ArticleStephen Wyeth reviews the Supreme Court's decision in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others [2021] UKSC 47, a case which demonstrates that any employer who has a workforce covered by collective bargaining needs to tread extremely carefully when looking to abandon negotiations with the relevant union and approach individuals with offers directly.
View ArticleNaomi Webber analyses R (the Motherhood Plan & Anor) v Her Majesty's Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 1703, 'in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by women who were disadvantaged by the Self Income Support Scheme. It did demonstrate, however, that care must be taken not to discriminate when creating schemes that rely on factors which may be affected by periods of maternity (and other) leave.
View ArticleCraig Ludlow reviews Hope v British Medical Association EA-2021-000187-JOJ, in which the EAT reminds us that the starting point in determining if a dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct is unfair, is always section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and not whether the conduct relied upon was capable of amounting to gross misconduct in the contractual sense.
View ArticleAndrew MacPhail analyses Hovis Limited v Mr W Louton EA-2020-000973-LA, and highlights the importance for parties in a case to always carefully consider if they are in a position to call witnesses who can give direct evidence on any disputed factual findings.
View Article