We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 87

Court guidance on aggravated damages

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 10 2012

In Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Shaw, the EAT considered when aggravated damages should be awarded, and their relationship with awards for injury to feelings

Negligent misstatement

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 20 2011

An interesting case in the High Court examined the situation where an ex-employer badmouths a former employee several years after employment has ended

Joint and several liability in discrimination claims

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 28 2011

The EAT has highlighted the potential personal exposure for individuals in discrimination claims

Pay in lieu of notice did not include guaranteed bonus

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 5 2011

The Court of Appeal in Locke v Candy & Candy Ltd considered whether a clause providing that an employee had to be employed to receive a guaranteed bonus was sufficient to exclude that employee's right to compensation for that bonus when he was summarily dismissed

Union acceptance of collective redundancy procedure results in reduction of protective award

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 2 2010

In Lancaster University v The University and College Union the EAT held that where a union had accepted a flawed notification and consultation procedure for university staff on fixed term contracts over a period of twelve years, a tribunal was correct in reducing protective awards from 90 days' pay to 60 days

Protection from harassment: course of conduct

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 20 2011

In Marinello v City of Edinburgh Council the Inner House of the Court of Session has held that an interval of 17 months between incidents of harrassment at work did not automatically mean that there could not be a course of conduct for the purposes of protection under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Referral to ECJ in Alemo-Herron

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 5 2011

The Supreme Court has made a reference to the ECJ in the case of Parkwood Leisure v Alemo-Herron to ascertain whether the Acquired Rights Directive precludes national courts from applying a ‘dynamic’ interpretation to regulation 5 of TUPE (automatic transfer of employees and associated rights and liabilities), particularly in relation to the ongoing application of collective agreements

Sharon Shoesmith

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 20 2011

As reported widely in the press, the Court of Appeal has allowed Sharon Shoesmith’s appeal against the Secretary of State and Haringey London Borough Council relating to judicial review of the decision to dismiss her in the light of the death of Baby P

Costs relevant for objective justification

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 20 2011

In Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd, the EAT held that G4S’s request to a Muslim security guard to man a site throughout Friday lunchtimes when he wished to attend his Mosque was, in the circumstances, objectively justifiable

Transferred collective agreements incorporate legislative changes

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 10 2010

The EAT in Worrall and others v Willmott Dixon Partnership Ltd and another considered the effect of the decision in Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Alemo-Herron and others, that only the terms of a collective agreement in force at the point of a TUPE transfer would bind a transferee and subsequent changes to the collective agreement would not bind it