The 1978 Directive required consultation in the case of collective redundancies. Acts had incorrectly incorporated this requirement into English law. The error was corrected in the 1995 Regulations. Held: Anything is ‘related to’ a Community obligation so long as it is not distinct, separate or divorced from it. The 1995 Regulations were valid.Otton LJ said: … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Unison: 1996
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the costs of a child’s education. Any consequences of a failure to keep a promise … Continue reading Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie: CA 20 Aug 1999
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal on the basis that he did not have two years’ continuous employment. The dispute turned on the start date. Section 211(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that, for these purposes, a period of continuous employment begins ‘with the day on which the employee starts work’. … Continue reading O’Sullivan v DSM Demolition Ltd (Jurisdictional Points – Continuity of Employment): EAT 15 May 2020
The Employment Tribunal had been faced with a dispute about whether the claimant was employed by one or more of a network of companies/business entities or was a self-employed contractor. The evidence illustrated that he had worked for more than one entity. Having decided that he had been an employee throughout the material period, the … Continue reading SD (Aberdeen) Ltd v Wright and Others (Jurisdictional Points – Continuity of Employment): EAT 14 Sep 2018
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsUnfair dismissal – automatically unfair reasons – health and safety cases.Section 100(1)(e) should be applied in two stages. Firstly, the Tribunal should consider whether the criteria set out in that provision have been met, as a matter of fact. Were there circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed … Continue reading Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 22 Jun 2011
The appellant had been employed to conduct driving tests. He had refused to conduct these where there was a driver’s airbag, but no headrest. He was convinced this was unsafe. After warnings as to his dismissal, he indicated that he would if specific re-assurance was obtained as to the safety of such an arrangement. He … Continue reading Sloan v Driving Standards Agency: EAT 26 May 2000
Judges: Peter Clark HHJ Citations: [1997] UKEAT 1213 – 97 – 1012 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 100(1)(a) Cited by: See Also – Bewry v Cumbria County Council EAT 10-Apr-2002 Appeal against rejection of complaint of unfair dismissal. Held: The appeal failed raising no arguable point of law. . .See Also – Bewry … Continue reading Bewry v Cumbria County Council: EAT 10 Dec 1997
The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his unfair dismissal application. Not having two years continuous employment he had claimed the protection of section 100 as a whistleblower, but the Tribunal had found that there had been a Health and Safety Committee where he could have made known his concerns about the long hours being … Continue reading Jackson v ICS Group of Companies Ltd: EAT 22 Jan 1998
The danger referred to in section 100(1)(e) need not refer to the workplace as such; threats posed by fellow employees will also be covered. Citations: [1999] UKEAT 488 – 99 – 0707, [1999] IRLR 778 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 100(1)(e) Employment Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205452
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Automatically Unfair Reasons – Automatic Unfair Dismissal – Section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996 – Applying the two-stage approach laid down by the EAT in Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd [2011] IRLR 730 (HHJ David Richardson presiding), the Claimant’s case before the Employment Tribunal did not satisfy the criteria required for the … Continue reading B v John Reid and Sons (Strucsteel) Ltd: EAT 21 May 2015
Unfair dismissal – automatically unfair dismissal – section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 The Claimant was a bus operator, operating out of the Putney bus garage, who claimed he had suffered detriment and automatic unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds under Sections 44 and 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the ERA’). These claims were … Continue reading Castano v London General Transport Services Ltd (Victimisation Detriment Health and Safety): EAT 29 Oct 2019
Appeal against refusal by the Employment Judge to strike out Dr Armes’ claims under sections 47B, 103A and 100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. The application to strike out was made on the basis that Dr Armes had no reasonable prospect of establishing that his pleaded disclosures were ‘qualifying disclosures’ within the meaning of section 43B(1), … Continue reading Twist DX Ltd and Others v Armes and Others (Whisleblowing, Protected Disclosures): EAT 23 Oct 2020
mchoice_aaldersEAT2011 EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of terminationThe employee was dismissed on notice expiring on 1 February 2011. On its expiry she would have had sufficient qualifying service to present a complaint of unfair dismissal. On 11 January 2011 during her period of notice she presented a complaint of unfair … Continue reading M-Choice UK Ltd v Aalders: EAT 10 Aug 2011
EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONSVICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing1. The Claimant was a ‘mobile worker’ to whom the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 (‘the RTR’) applied. The Tribunal did not consider the RTR; and if it had considered the RTR ought to have found that the Claimant was correct in asserting that if the Respondent required … Continue reading Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2011
The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer. Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and the employer’s succeeded. It was wrong to draw parallels with prohibited grounds reasons and unfair … Continue reading Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd: CA 17 Apr 2008
The appeal was against the refusal of a tribunal to extend time on just and equitable grounds for the bringing of a claim by the Second Claimant for a redundancy payment under section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal’s reason for that decision was that the Second Claimant would be unlikely to … Continue reading Dhungana v Rai and Others: EAT 25 Jul 2022
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALProcedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalCompensationContributory faultUnfair Dismissal under s98A(1) and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Tribunal find 100% contribution and deduction under s123(1). No compensatory award (save in respect of loss of statutory rights).No error in Employment Tribunal approach. Ingram (UKEAT/0601/06. 23 April 2007. Elias P) considered and followed. Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0501 … Continue reading Lambert v Vicomte Bernard De Romanet Ltd: EAT 18 Mar 2011
EATR UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal Employment Tribunal found dismissal for redundancy reason unfair under s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 on two grounds; (i) selection (ii) alternative employment. As to (i) ET substituted own view as to a fair selection procedure and as to (ii) failed to consider whether employer’s attempts to find alternative … Continue reading Amazon.Co.Uk.Ltd v Hurdus: EAT 10 Feb 2011
The Claimant had relied on a number of causes of action in his ET claim, including an allegation of an automatically unfair health and safety dismissal contrary to s.100(1)(b) ERA 1996 for his having sought to undertake a workplace inspection in his capacity as a Safety Representative under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations … Continue reading Markham v Asda Stores Ltd (Health and Safety): EAT 15 Aug 2019
In a case on the issue of sufficiency of qualifying service for bringing an ordinary case of unfair dismissal, the court considered the allocation of the burden of proof in employment cases. Held: The burden is upon he who is seeking to rely upon the exception to bring himself within it. The court also considered … Continue reading Smith v Hayle Town Council: CA 1978
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did not receive the staff or guidance to allow him to do the work … Continue reading Walker v Northumberland County Council: QBD 16 Nov 1994
Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately explained. The court could look to parliamentary reports to identify the mischief sought to be rectified, … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 11 Feb 2004
The claimant a citizen of the Netherlands, appealed against the refusal to grant him housing assistance. He had been unemployed save for taking casual work during the Wimbledon championships, but the Authority had denied that he was a worker. He had also suffered an injury preventing him working. Held: The appeal succeeded. The term ‘worker’ … Continue reading Barry v London Borough of Southwark: CA 19 Dec 2008
The appellant appealed a finding that the respondent had been its employee, saying he was a minister of religion. Held: The judge had been entitled to find an intention to create legal relations, and therefore that the claimant was an employee. ‘The religious beliefs of a community may be such that their manifestation does not … Continue reading The New Testament Church of God v Reverend Stewart: CA 19 Oct 2007
EAT Contract of Employment – definition of employeeInsolvencyThe Appellants were a husband and wife who entered into contracts of employment with a company which they managed and which they between them owned 99.99% of the shares (the wife having just 51.99% and the husband 48%). When the company became insolvent they claimed against the Secretary … Continue reading Nesbitt v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: EAT 10 Aug 2007
Four appellants challenged the policy of the ministry to discharge homosexuals from the armed services. Held: Where a measure affects fundamental rights or has profoundly intrusive effects, the courts will anxiously scrutinise the decision to introduce it.Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive … Continue reading Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith; ex parte Grady: CA 3 Nov 1995
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT. Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts in dispute between the parties which might affect the decision. It was … Continue reading Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust: CA 7 Mar 2007
EAT The employee was the practice manager at a general medical practice. She was dismissed for dishonesty, taking unauthorised pay for overtime hours. She alleged that she had been told by the former practice manager that she should do so, but the Tribunal found that she did not raise this with any of the doctors.The … Continue reading Kelly-Madden v Manor Surgery: EAT 19 Oct 2006
EAT The claimant had worked as an adviser for the respondent identifying investment opportunities. He said he had been unfairly dismissed after disclosing that the company had overpaid for an investment. He now appealed against a finding that any disclosures were not made in good faith and were not qualifying disclosures. Though his dismissal had … Continue reading Bachnak v Emerging Markets Partnership (Europe) Ltd: EAT 27 Jan 2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal When an employee is dismissed and then reinstated on an internal appeal it is open to the parties to agree reinstatement as a matter of contract and such an arrangement albeit made after the gap in the continuity of employment, fills in the gap for the purposes of section 212 of the … Continue reading London Probation Board v Kirkpatrick: EAT 7 Jan 2005
The applicant had been employed to provide services to RAF in the Ascension Islands. He alleged constructive dismissal. There was an issue as to whether somebody working in the Ascension Islands was protected by the 1996 Act. The restriction on jurisdiction in s196 had been removed. The question now was as to what test applied … Continue reading Serco Ltd v Lawson and Foreign and Commonwealth Office: CA 23 Jan 2004
Section 94(1) of the 1996 Act did not apply to protect a British national locally engaged to work in the British Embassy in Rome. Judges: Burton P J Citations: EAT/174/02, [2003] EAT 174 – 02 – 1003, [2003] UKEAT 174 – 02 – 1003 Links: Bailii, Bailii, EAT Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 94(1) Cited … Continue reading Bryant v The Foreign and Commnonwealth Office: EAT 10 Mar 2003
The employer appealed against a finding of unlawful deduction of wages. Held: The words ‘any . . emolument’ includes overtime pay, which may be isolated from other contractual terms as to pay. An arrangement under which the employer had tried to defeat a claim for unpaid overtime, by redescribing the basic pay rate failed. The … Continue reading Pendragon Plc v Nota: EAT 18 Mar 2002
The employee had been dismissed. She alleged that it was because of her pregnancy, and was automatically unfair. The employers, a firm of solicitors, alleged that it related to her standards of work. Held: To establish sex discrimination a woman does not need to show that her pregnancy was the only cause, or even the … Continue reading Martin v Goldsobel: EAT 6 Sep 2001
In a case alleging indirect sex discrimination in the differing rules denying entitlement to redundancy payments for men over 65, the tribunal should be ready to look at a wide range of statistics. The test is whether the rule imposed some condition which could be met only by a substantially smaller proportion of one sex … Continue reading Harvest Town Circle Ltd v Rutherford: EAT 10 Jul 2001
ECJ Despite the limited character of the harmonization of rules in respect of collective redundancies which Directive 75/129 was intended to bring about, national rules which, by not providing for a system for the designation of workers’ representatives in an undertaking where an employer refuses to recognize such representatives, allow an employer to frustrate the … Continue reading Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment): ECJ 8 Jun 1994
The applicant was recruited in Saudi Arabia in 1986 as a flight attendant under a contract expressed to be subject to Saudi Arabian law. After being trained in Jeddah, and then employed in India for four years, she was transferred to be based in London, from which all her tours of duty as a flight … Continue reading Carver (Nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines: CA 17 Mar 1999
EAT Employees of an unincorporated charitable association are employed by the management committee or other similar body within the association, and not by the members of the association at large. The employees have continuity of employment despite any change in the constitution of the committee. In practice such actions should be brought against a representative … Continue reading Affleck and Others v Newcastle Mind and Others: EAT 10 Mar 1999
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Acquired rights directiveThe European Acquired rights directive sought to protect the rights of employees on the a transfer of a business to another employer. It was transposed into UK law by regulations purportedly made under 2(2) of the 1972 Act. The tribunal held that TUPE applied where the employer became … Continue reading Perth and Kinross Council v Tony Donaldson and 14 Others Newtown Construction Scotland Ltd Meldru: EAT 30 Oct 2003
UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Implied term/variation/construction of term The Claimant was given a small shareholding in her employer as a condition of its sale to the Respondent and sold the shares to them under a Share Purchase Agreement. Part of the consideration for the shares were deferred earn-out shares and loan … Continue reading Nosworthy v Instinctif Partners Ltd: EAT 28 Feb 2019
CS The Defendant had been employed by the Claimant ouncil for many years, initially as an advisor on further and higher education, but latterly as an education assistant. The Claimants informed the Defendant that his contract of employment would terminate on grounds of redundancy with effect from 15 December 1995. On that date, when the … Continue reading Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Hancock: SCCO 2 Mar 2001
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Health and Safety In considering a claim under section100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’), there are no arguable grounds for concluding the Tribunal erred. The Tribunal made the necessary findings on the evidence before it to conclude (1) that there were no circumstances of danger; (2) the Claimant did not … Continue reading Hamilton v Solomon and Wu Ltd (Victimisation Discrimination – Health and Safety): EAT 24 Sep 2018
EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Detriment PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke Protected disclosure – detriments – burden of proof – section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 – adequacy of Employment Tribunal reasons On the Claimant’s complaint of detriment due to having made protected disclosures, the ET accepted that she had been subjected to detriment in the … Continue reading Brito-Babapulle v Isle of Wight NHS Trust: EAT 10 Jun 2016
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer. Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were not to be reduced by deducting the full net value of … Continue reading Parry v Cleaver: HL 5 Feb 1969
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Contributory Fault – The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed but also that he ’caused or contributed to his dismissal by 100%’ and made no basic or compensatory award. It erred in law and gave insufficient reasons in its application of section 122(2) and section 123(1) and (6) … Continue reading Allen v Queen Mary University of London: EAT 11 Apr 2016
EAT Jurisdictional Points: Continuity of Employment Continuity of employment – Sections 210(5) and 218(6) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) In circumstances involving a change of employer, the Employment Tribunal (‘the ET’) had been wrong to consider that the presumption of continuity of employment provided by section 210(5) ERA applied (section 218(1) ERA). That did not, … Continue reading Schwarzenbach (T/A Thames-Side Court Estate v Jones: EAT 4 Sep 2015
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Continuity of employment The transferee employer appealed against a Decision of the Employment Tribunal (‘the ET’) that the employee’s continuity of employment was preserved by section 212(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, despite a transfer of the undertaking in which the employee was employed, between a … Continue reading Services for Education (S4E Ltd) v White and Another: EAT 10 Aug 2015
UTAA Jobseekers allowance – voluntary unemployment – ‘This case raises some interesting and difficult questions about the relevance to the provision in section 19(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995 for a ‘sanction’ (ie the identification of a period up to 26 weeks for which jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) is not payable) where a claimant has ‘lost … Continue reading AA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: UTAA 15 Mar 2012
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason – Contributory fault Polkey deduction The Claimant is a politician in Local Government and is currently the elected Mayor of Liverpool. This is an executive post and regarded as full-time. The position carries with it an annual allowance of almost andpound;80,000. The Claimant had previously … Continue reading Anderson v Chesterfield High School (Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason): EAT 14 Apr 2015
Working Time Regulations – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Detriment Employment Rights Act 1996 section 45A(1)(a), (b) and (c): right not to be subjected to detriment on the grounds that a worker has (a) refused (or proposed to refuse) to comply with a requirement which the employer imposed (or proposed to impose) in contravention of the Working … Continue reading Gale and Others v Mid and West Wales Fire Service (Working Time Regulations): EAT 10 Apr 2015
EAT Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out/Dismissal – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure The Claimant, a worker on the permanent staff of a care home, asserted in her ET1 that her dismissal was because she had made protected disclosures, and not the purported reason (which was gross misconduct, for dragging a resident across the floor). An … Continue reading Romanowska v Aspirations Care Ltd: EAT 25 Jun 2014
EAT Contract of Employment : Wrongful Dismissal – Implied term/variation/construction of term UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Contributory fault The Claimant was summarily dismissed. He brought a claim of wrongful dismissal. The Employment Judge found that he had been wrongfully dismissed, the conduct upon which the Respondent relied not being inadvertent and not in repudiatory breach. It … Continue reading Robert Bates Wrekin Landscapes Ltd v Knight: EAT 30 Jan 2014
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasonsBurden of proving the ‘whistleblowing’ reason for dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 lies on the employee who has insufficient continuous service to bring a claim of ordinary unfair dismissal. Smith v Hayle applied.However, the case was not decided by this Employment Tribunal on the burden of proof. … Continue reading Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Automatically Unfair Reasons): EAT 8 Aug 2013
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Contributory fault UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss Unfair dismissal – compensation – Polkey reduction – contributory fault – mitigation of loss The ET found the Claimant had been dismissed from his employment by reason of his conduct, after he had initiated an altercation with the Managing … Continue reading Singh v Glass Express Midlands Ltd (Unfair Dismissal – Polkey Deduction): EAT 15 Jun 2018
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The procedure adopted did not follow the statutory rules, but the tribunal had found the dismissals to be fair. The … Continue reading Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd: EAT 12 Apr 2006
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004
Loss of agent’s share for breach within LLP The court was asked whether the principle that a fiduciary (in particular, an agent) who acts in breach of his fiduciary duties can lose his right to remuneration, is capable of applying to profit share of a partner in a partnership or a member of a limited … Continue reading Hosking v Marathon Asset Management Llp: ChD 5 Oct 2016
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 Regulations. The High Court found the appointment to be outwith the provisions, but this was … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani: SC 27 Jul 2011
chesteron_nurmohamedEAT201504 EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION Whistleblowing Protected disclosure This appeal concerns the meaning of the words ‘in the public interest’ inserted into section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by section17 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The Respondent was Director of the Mayfair office of the First Appellant, a well-known firm of … Continue reading Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and Another v Nurmohamed (Victimisation Discrimination: Whistleblowing): EAT 8 Apr 2015
EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Holiday pay Mr Lock was at the material time employed by British Gas as a salesman. His remuneration package included a basic salary plus commission which was based on the number and type of contracts he persuaded customers to enter into; in other words it was results-based commission and did … Continue reading British Gas Trading Ltd v Lock and Another (Working Time Regulations : Holiday Pay): EAT 22 Feb 2016
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATIONUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deductionCouncil employee seconded to registered social landlord – Secondment comes to an end, so that he is formally redundant – Employee aged 49 and would be entitled to an early retirement pension if retained in employment to age 50 – Council fails to find him alternative employment or to … Continue reading London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster: EAT 10 Sep 2009
The employer was to make 530 members of its staff redundant. Each staff member was assessed and scored. The claimants said that the method of selection was unfair, and sought disclosure of the scores of all employees. Held: It was wrong to order discovery of the forms of employees who had not been selected for … Continue reading British Aerospace plc v Green and Others: CA 18 Apr 1995
parharEAT2012 EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissalIll health capability dismissal. Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 reasonableness judged by Employment Tribunal only as at EDT; ET ought to have considered the whole disciplinary process, including subsequent appeals; West Midlands Co-operative Society Limited v Tipton [1986] IRLR 112; Taylor v OCS Group Limited [2006] IRLR … Continue reading First Hampshire and Dorset Ltd v Parhar: EAT 10 May 2012
glasson_bexleyEAT0414 EAT Unlawful Deduction From Wages – CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Incorporation into contract The Employment Tribunal, in a sufficiently reasoned decision, was entitled on the evidence to conclude that: (i) Payments made to the Appellant, between April 2007 and July 2011, for performing additional duties, were made under the Respondent’s ‘honorarium’ scheme. (ii) They … Continue reading Glasson v London Borough of Bexley: EAT 10 Apr 2014
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion. Held: The school’s appeal succeeded. The school had acted responsibly and carefully seeking to balance and respect several interests when … Continue reading Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School: HL 22 Mar 2006
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s allowance payable to those under 25. Held: (Lord Carswell dissented in part.) The claims failed. The … Continue reading Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same: HL 26 May 2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
The Hospital Medical Group argued that Dr Westwood was in business on his own account as a doctor, in which he had three customers, the NHS for his services as a general practitioner, the Albany Clinic for whom he did transgender work, and the . .
Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index
