‘A broker has lost a claim that he was bullied into leaving a City trading firm where “homophobic, racist and sexist” abuse was widespread, according to a report.’
The Independent, 10th September 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Ofsted warns that reforms designed to prevent school leavers becoming NEETs – not in education, employment or training – merely end up “delaying their fall” into the category at a later stage.’
Daily Telegraph, 7th September 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Former police officer Carol Howard has won £37,000 from the Met, after two years fighting her case against racial and gender discrimination. A victory, yes, but hard won. So is it ever worth suing your boss? Radhika Sanghani asks the legal experts.’
Daily Telegraph, 4th September 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘This talk looks at the legal and practical tools available to employment lawyers to prove or disprove direct discrimination and harassment, exploring in particular three areas:
How judges apply the burden of proof s136(2)(3) EA 2010.
What is the role of Comparators in light of the Supreme Court decision of Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] ICR 1054, SC.
What role does knowledge of the protected characteristic now play in light of IPC Media Ltd v Millar [2013] IRLR 707.’
Cloisters, 29th August 2014
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Scotland Yard subjected a black female officer to “vindictive … spiteful … insulting, malicious and oppressive” treatment and greeted her victory against the force in a discrimination case by trying to smear her name, a tribunal has found.’
The Guardian, 2nd September 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Six out of ten mothers think their careers were “derailed” and they faced open discrimination after becoming pregnant, new research by Slater & Gordon has revealed.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 2nd September 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Martin Partington discussed a range of careers in his podcasts yesterday. Today [20 August], he tackles how new legal issues and developments in the professional environment have in turn changed organizational structures, rules and regulations, and aspects of legal education.’
OUP Blog, 20th August 2014
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘An employee is not prevented from resigning and bringing a constructive dismissal claim against a former employer by the fact that the employer may have been preparing a gross misconduct case against him, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘What range of career options are out there for those attending law school? In this series of podcasts, Martin Partington talks to influential figures in the law about topics ranging from restorative justice to legal journalism.’
OUP Blog, 19th August 2014
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘The point at which the new employer becomes responsible for the workers who have been transferred under TUPE rules is a question of fact, not the wishes or intentions of the parties, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A change in the working location of somebody who has changed employer through TUPE will only be grounds for a constructive dismissal claim if that change is “substantial” and causes “material detriment” to the worker.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘An NHS trust which put staff at risk to exposure from asbestos for 11 years has been ordered to pay nearly £90,000 by a court.’
BBC News, 20th August 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Empire Strikes Back? Triumph of the Literal Interpretation of Restrictive Covenant Prophet Plc V Christopher Huggett [2014] Ewca Civ 1013 (22 July 2014)’
Littleton Chambers, 23rd July 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Two former Investec traders lost a three-year, £6m battle over their bonuses on Wednesday in a case described by a London high court judge as fanciful and “wholly incredible”.’
The Guardian, 6th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A solicitor has won a High Court battle to prove he was an employee and not a partner at a firm subject to legal action.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st August 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘On 8 July 2014, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (UT) handed down its eagerly awaited judgement in HMRC v Murray Group Holdings and Others[1], which concerned an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) structure. Most readers will know this case as the ‘Rangers Case’, as the facts relate to employees of the Scottish football club as it existed before its liquidation and subsequent purchase.’
RPC Privacy Law, 31st July 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘In recent days, two pieces of news related to the most controversial elements of the Remuneration Code have emerged: clawback, and the bonus cap. The Remuneration Code applies to the variable remuneration (i.e. bonus) of certain employees of banks, building societies, investment firms, and some overseas firms of a similar nature.’
Employment Law Blog, 28th July 2014
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘Women are being priced out of justice in the workplace, according to figures which show the number of sex discrimination claims brought by women against employers have fallen 80 per cent since court charges were introduced.’
The Independent, 29th July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The UK’s highest court will rule on a landmark decision of whether illegal immigrants should be deprived of fundamental workers’ rights, following the appeal of a Nigerian national who was trafficked into the UK. Judges from the Supreme Court, including Britain’s most senior female judge Lady Hale, will deliver the verdict on Wednesday in a case which could set an important precedent for the rights of workers found to be treated as modern-day slaves.’
The Independent, 27th July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In Wrotham Park v Parkside Homes [1974] 1 WLR 798, the Court declined to order a land-owner to destroy a property he had built on his land in breach of a covenant in favour of his neighbour. Instead, it awarded the neighbour damages in lieu of an injunction under Lord Cairns’ Act, in such sum “as might reasonably have been demanded by the [covenantee] … as the quid pro quo for relaxing the covenant” (815). The Court assessed the damages as a modest percentage of the profit anticipated (“with the benefit of foresight”) by the contract breaker. Employment lawyers have sought to exploit Wrotham Park for some time now, particularly following the seminal judgments of the House of Lords in AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, where it was held that in exceptional circumstances (where conventional remedies had no value) the contract breacher could be required to account for the fruits of his breach of contract.’
Employment Law Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024