Search 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

The SENDIST extended appeals jurisdiction

John Friel considers how to make the best use of the recent legal developments on recommendations made under the SENDIST’s extended appeals jurisdiction when such recommendations are rejected by a local authority.

View Article

Care Standards Tribunal reiterates essential legal and procedural requirements of suspension decisions

Alice de Coverley and Sunyana Sharma examine the decision of the Care Standards Tribunal in Mrs EI v Suffolk Childcare Agency [2024] UKFTT 00429 (HESC) in the first known case regarding the appeal of a suspension decision by a childminder agency, other than Ofsted.

Alice de Coverley, instructed by DAC Beachcroft, represented the Respondent, and Sunyana Sharma, also from 3PB, represented the Appellant, instructed by Stephensons.

View Article

Vaccines, dismissals and human rights

Naomi Webber reviews the case of Masiero & others v Barchester Healthcare PLC [2024] EAT 112, which highlights that reasonable business requirement to change terms of employment and reasonable reasons to refuse them are not mutually exclusive.

Naomi also outlines the correct approach to be taken where human rights are engaged and part of the relevant factors to be considered in the context of dismissals.

View Article

Trans rights charity did not cause or induce chambers to discriminate against one of its barristers

Rosa Thomas analyses the case of Bailey v (1) Stonewall Equality Ltd (2) Garden Court Chambers & Ors [2024] EAT 119, the first reported judgment that directly deals with what it means to cause or induce discrimination under s.111 Equality Act 2010.

This judgment provides helpful guidance, particularly on the mental element required under s.111 and what is required to establish causation under s.111(2).

View Article

Should dismissals for disability-related absences be pleaded as direct discrimination?

Robin Pickard considers the case of South Gloucestershire Council v Ms Hundal [2024] EAT 140, which provides a useful reminder of the distinction between sections 13 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to dismissals due to absences.

The EAT also clarifies that a failure to make reasonable adjustments (FMRAs) may inform the ET’s analysis of justification under s. 15(1)(b), notwithstanding that a claimant has not brought a separate claim for FMRAs.

View Article

Promises of permanence and limits to the right to dismiss

Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW [2024] UKSC 28, in which the Supreme Court was asked to consider if Tesco was entitled to terminate certain employment contracts which included an entitlement to "Retained Pay", described as a "permanent" benefit, to then re-hire the same employees on contracts without Retained Pay.

View Article