Luke Nelson surveys the ‘lay of the land’, three months after the FRC Efficiency Statement. At its launch, the Efficiency Statement was heralded by some as a necessary step towards collaborative working in financial remedies. Others queried whether the front-loading brought about by its proposals would detrimentally affect relations between lay clients. Luke's article considers which side of the argument is borne out now.
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
Jo Laxton reviews Charalambous v National Bank of Greece [2023] EAT 75, a case in which the EAT had to decide if the process followed by the Respondent amounted to unfair dismissal.
View ArticleStephen Wyeth analyses United Taxis Ltd v (1) Mr R Comolly (2) Mr R Tidman - and - Mr R Tidman v (1) United Taxis Ltd v (2) Mr R Comolly [2023] EAT 93, a case in which the EAT considers whether a person can be an employee of one employer and a worker of another in respect of the same work, and confirms the need for careful analysis of the facts when determining employment status.
Stephen Wyeth acted for the successful respondent United Taxis.
View ArticleEmma Greening considers Mrs R Kealy v Westfield Community Development Association [2023] EAT 96. In this case concerning protected disclosures a defective List of Issues led to a serious misapplication of the law. The EAT’s judgment is an illustrated warning that the List of Issues can play a pivotal role in the ETs decision-making and that we should take great care not to shortcut or summarise our way through drafting these documents.
View ArticleSarah Clarke on the case of Pilkington v Jones [2023] EAT 90, which serves as a warning to employers to very carefully consider the dismissal of an employee in cases of potential malingering as they could unwittingly find themselves facing a successful section 15 claim.
View ArticleAlexander Whatley analyses the case of Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc v Goodrich Corporation [2023] EWHC 1637 (Comm), a case in which the High Court had to consider if the original, contractual agreement between the two parties or the incorrect invoice issued by the supplier was to take primacy in this commercial dispute.
View ArticleMichelle Marnham and future 3PB Pupil Jeremy Warner analyse MXX v A Secondary School [2023] EWCA Civ 996, a case concerned with the grooming of a minor, in which the Court of Appeal clarified that work experience can be a relationship akin to employment for the purpose of vicarious liability. The Court confirmed the difficulty to satisfy the “close connection” test, which requires for the tort and the employment of the tortfeasor to be “inextricably woven”.
View ArticleKatherine Anderson analyses AECOM Limited v Mallon [2023] EAT 104, a case in which the EAT provides a useful review of the authorities on what reasonable enquiries an employer should make of a disabled job applicant.
View ArticleGrace Holden considers Owen v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2023] EAT 106, a case in which the EAT ultimately confirms previous decisions of the EAT that the lack of an explanation as to why a claim is brought late is not a pre-requisite to extension of time being granted, but is of particular relevance.
The judgment provides useful learning points and reminders for practitioners dealing with just and equitable time extension arguments.
View ArticleNicola Frost examines if the court should automatically disregard pre-nuptial agreements that fail to adhere to the ‘28-Day Rule’, in this article first published in Family Law.
View ArticleMark Green on the case of Habib v Dave Whelan Sports Ltd t/a DW Fitness First [2023] EAT 113 and the EAT's important reminder to all involved in trials with vulnerable or disabled claimants, that proper attention to the ETBB and the Presidential Guidance on vulnerable witnesses will help reach robust judicial decisions and avoid future appeals.
View ArticleSarah Clarke reviews the case of Rajput v Commerzbank and Société Générale [2023] EAT, which appears to be the first appellate authority examining when a transfer takes place within a ‘series of transactions’ cases under TUPE regulation 3(6). The EAT also looked at the relevance of location of the business in a TUPE transfer.
Sarah Clarke acted for the successful appellant Jagruti Rajput.
View Article