Craig Ludlow analyses the case of Virgin Active Ltd v Hughes [2023] EAT 130, in which the EAT considers the effect of delay on the fairness of a trial and emphasises the importance of considering material differences in circumstances between claimant and comparators when deciding whether burden of proof has shifted.
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
Alex Leonhardt reviews the case of Steel v Spencer Road LLP [2023] EWHC 2492 (Ch), in which the High Court decided with some certainty that though a bonus scheme conditional on the employee remaining in employment for a specified time acts as a disincentive to that employee resigning, it does not constitute a restraint of trade.
View ArticleAlex Leonhardt considers the case of ONEA v Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd [2023] EAT 125, in which the EAT issues its second reminder this year (following Lycatel Services Ltd v Schneider [2023] EAT 81) that applications to stay need to be determined following a decision on which forum the dispute would be “most conveniently and appropriately be tried” as per Bowater Plc v Charlwood [1991] ICR 798, and also considers the relationship between that test and a presumption against the High Court being bound by prior findings of the Employment Tribunal.
View ArticleLuke Nelson writes a brief guide to "Intervener actions in financial remedies proceedings: interests in land" for Family Law
View ArticleMatthew Wyard on the recent Court of Protection property & affairs decisions of PSG Trust Corporation Ltd v CK & Re: P (Statutory Will).
In PSG Trust Corporation Ltd v CK [2024] EWCOP 14, the Court considered how a property and affairs deputy should approach the issue of whether to inform P of the value of a civil litigation settlement.
Re: P (Statutory Will) [2024] EWCOP 12 concerned an application to amend a statutory will, for which the Court had to consider if unidentified charity beneficiaries had to be served with the application to amend in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 9 of Practice Direction 9E.
View ArticleJoseph England analyses the case of Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice [2024] EAT 29, in which the EAT re-confirms the Court of Appeal's decision in Osipov concerning a claimant's ability to claim for detriments that precede dismissal against a co-worker and against the corporate employer for its vicariously liability even if the losses that flow amount to those that flow from dismissal; and that a Claimant can claim for the detriment of dismissal against a co-worker.
The EAT however departs from the Court of Appeal in asserting that a Claimant is very unlikely to be able to claim for the detriment of dismissal against the corporate employer, having applied scrutiny to the Court's ratio in Osipov.
View ArticleCraig Ludlow on the case of Hargreaves v (1) Evolve Housing & Support (2) Mr Simon McGrath, in which the EAT reminds us how difficult it is to get claims struck out before Employment Tribunals.
Specifically, in this case, cogent evidence was needed to support the assertion that a fair trial was not possible because of the claimant's conduct, instead of simply relying on the ET to make this assumption.
View ArticleMark Green follows up an important change in the law since his £350,000 win in the associative indirect discrimination case of Follows.
S19A Equality Act 2010 expressly permits such claims and therefore provides important clarity for carers and others who may suffer indirect discrimination by association.
View ArticleSarah Clarke considers the case of Jones v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care EA-2022-000744-JOJ, which provides a useful reminder of the very wide discretion given to employment tribunals when determining whether or not a claim had been brought within such time as was just and equitable, and appellate courts should be slow to interfere with the exercise of this discretion.
View ArticleJo Laxton analyses the case of Bauhaus Educational Services Limited v Elemide [2023] EAT 161, in which the EAT considers the guidance in Minnoch to determine if a claimant had complied with the terms of an Unless Order.
View ArticleStephen Wyeth reviews Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37 which deals with the issue of whether trial periods can be a reasonable adjustment in the context of existing case law and offers some useful discussion about how the burden of proof shifts in such cases.
View ArticleBen Amunwa analyses the case of Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (t/a Global Artists) & Anor [2024] EAT 30, in which the EAT upheld the Tribunal’s judgment, including its key finding that where a protected belief forms part of the context but not part of the reason for a decision, that will be insufficient to establish religion or belief discrimination.
View Article