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
The claimant gypsies had bought and moved onto land in Norfolk and stayed there in breach of planning enforcement notices. The inspector upheld the notices, but advised the Council of the difficulties in finding sites and had stayed enforcement for a year. The claimants now said that it was unlawful of the council to use … Continue reading Lisa Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v South Norfolk Council: Admn 10 Nov 2006
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than others, and that it was contrary to the obligations of the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004
The Respondent had authorised immigration officers to act in a way which would otherwise be a discrimination against Tamils under the 1976 Act. They complained that authorisations had been effectively and unlawfully delegated.
Held: The . .
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
The respondent resisted a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination on the basis that the employment contract was illegal since the claimant was an immigrant and unable to work without a work permit. Held: The Court of Appeal upheld a defence of illegality to a teacher’s complaint against a school of unlawful discrimination by … Continue reading V v Addey and Stanhope School: CA 30 Jul 2004
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted. Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant had to establish facts allowing the tribunal to conclude, in the … Continue reading Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005