Katherine Anderson analyses Royal Parks Ltd v Boohene, Antwi and Others [2023] EAT 63, a case which asked whether workers employed by third-party contractors could rely on the principal's own employees as comparators in a claim of indirect race discrimination relating to rates of pay, under section 41 EqA.
View ArticleSearch Results for: CSCM-001 PDF đ CSCM-001 Lernhilfe 𧊠CSCM-001 Buch đŠș Suchen Sie auf der Webseite â www.itzert.com â nach { CSCM-001 } und laden Sie es kostenlos herunter đCSCM-001 Probesfragen
Katherine Anderson considers the case of Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency [2023] EAT 62 in which the EAT confirmed the scope of the word "at" in the wording "at a place where" of section 44 (1)(c)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
View ArticleDaniel Brown reviews the case of Alcedo Orange Ltd v Mrs G Ferridge-Gunn [2023] EAT 78 in which the EAT allowed an appeal against a finding that an employeeâs dismissal was because of her pregnancy (contrary s.18 Equality Act 2010) on the ground that the ET had not considered Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd [2015] ICR 1010.
View ArticleAndrew MacPhail reviews the case of Lovingangels Care Home Ltd v Mhindurwa [2023] EAT 65, which highlights the need for employers to explore all options before proceeding to a decision to dismiss by reason of redundancy.
View ArticleMichelle Marnham analyses the case of Jenkinson v Hertfordshire CC [2023] EWHC 872 (KB), a case which presents us with an intriguing change in clinical negligence law, with Baker J challenging the long-standing notion of the âspecific ruleâ in medical negligence cases.
View ArticleSimon Tibbitts reflects on Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd and the CoAâs guidance for approaching Rule 70 applications.
View ArticleJoseph England analyses Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Limited [2023] EAT 86 and the EATâs analysis of whether the effect of conduct can amount to harassment when the Claimant is unaware of the conduct at the time.
View ArticleAlex Leonhardt reviews the case of Mrs Kristie Higgs v Farmorâs School (The Archbishopâs Council of the Church of England intervening) EA-2020-000896-JOJ in which the EAT considers a case involving dismissal on the basis of the manner a protected belief was manifested by an employee in social media posts, and guidance on the question of proportionality in such cases.
View ArticleKatherine Anderson considers the case of Mrs N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust: [2022] EAT 204 in which the ET failed to adjudicate upon a claim though its particulars set out sufficient information for it to be considered.
View ArticleLuke Nelson surveys the âlay of the landâ, three months after the FRC Efficiency Statement. Â 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 ArticleJo 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 Article