3PB Pupil Barrister Emma Greening discusses the case Health & Safety Executive v Mr M Jowett[2022], and documents from claimant's previous employment with the respondent being admissible in respect of remedy.
View ArticleSearch Results for: ECBA Deutsche Prüfungsfragen 💏 ECBA PDF Demo 🛑 ECBA Lernhilfe ✌ Sie müssen nur zu ☀ www.itzert.com ️☀️ gehen um nach kostenloser Download von ☀ ECBA ️☀️ zu suchen 👿ECBA Prüfungsinformationen
Naomi Webber considers the first case relating to Covid-19 and s.100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to reach the Court of Appeal, Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting [2022]. The case determines the employers liability in relation to serious and imminent danger claims from an employee during the pandemic.
View ArticleAlex Leonhardt considers the Supreme Court’s decision in McCue v Glasgow City Council, a claim against a local authority’s decision to not disregard certain disability-related expenses from a means-testing assessment.
View Article3PB employment specialist, Grace Nicholls analyses the case Hawkes v Oxford Economics Limited [2022] EAT 179 when an appeal was brought against a Registrar’s order from April 2022 in which an extension of time to present an appeal was refused.
View ArticleAlex Leonhardt looks at the case of Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller, in which the EAT considered the application of direct discrimination in circumstances where both staff of both sexes shared nominally the same toilet facilities.
View Article3PB employment law specialist Andrew MacPhail considers the case Cook v Gentoo Group Limited [2023] EAT 12 where the EAT had to consider whether the ET had erred in dismissing a direct age discrimination claim.
View Article3PB Intellectual Property barrister Faizul Azman provides an insightful article which aims to provide both employers and employees with a general understanding of intellectual property rights in a copyright work created in the course of employment.
View ArticlePupil Barrister Emma Greening looks at Mr T Smith v Tesco Stores Ltd [2023] EAT 11 in which the EAT upheld a decision to strike out a claim where the claimant, who was a litigant in person, acted in a manner that was considered vexatious.
View ArticleCraig Ludlow analyses the case of HHJ Kalyany Kaul KC v (1) Ministry of Justice (2) The Lord Chancellor (3) The Lord Chief Justice [2023] EAT 41 in which the EAT states that the need for caution when considering a strike-out application does not prohibit realistic assessment where the circumstances of the case permit.
View ArticleMark Green reviews the various ways in which vexatious litigants can be prevented from bringing claims, prompted by the Court of Appeal case of Williamson v The Bishop of London and others [2023] EWCA Civ 379, which confirms the strict rules around Civil Proceedings Orders.
View ArticleDaniel Brown analyses Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Clark & Others [2023] EWCA (Civ) 386 in which the Court of Appeal overruled E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall and Sterling v United Learning Trust and set out how arguments about non-compliance with Rules 10 to 12 of the ET Rules of Procedure, in relation to early conciliation, should be dealt with in future.
View ArticleAlex Leonhardt considers the case of Mr J Edward v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EAT 33, in which the EAT carefully considered the relevant principles for approaching questions of failure to mitigate losses, and in particular where percentage reductions similar to “loss of chance” cases are appropriate.
View Article