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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 18

High Court rules that retirement age is not unlawful
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 19 2010

As widely reported, the High Court has ruled that the UK's default retirement age of 65 contained in the Age Discrimination Regulations is not unlawful for now R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills 2009 EWHC 2336 HC) (Heyday


Internal disciplinary proceedings and right to legal representation
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 19 2010

The Court of Appeal has commented that a junior doctor facing serious disciplinary charges can be entitled to legal representation at his disciplinary hearing even if the disciplinary policy does not provide for such a right


New rules on workers who fall sick during annual leave
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • March 19 2010

The ECJ has held that, where a worker's pre-arranged annual leave coincides with a period of sick leave, the worker must have the option to reschedule their annual leave to an alternative period under the Working Time Directive Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA C-27708 (ECJ


The EAT confirms associative discrimination is covered by the DDA
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 30 2010

The EAT has held that the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) covers discrimination by reason of, and harassment related to, a third person's disability (associative discrimination) and suggested additional wording to the DDA to cover this in the case of EBR Attridge LLP and another v Coleman (No 2


TUPE - the EAT provides guidance on a substantial change to working conditions to an employee's detriment
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 30 2010

The EAT has provided guidance on what amounts to a substantial change to a transferring employee's working conditions to their material detriment in the case of Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust


New Agency Worker Regulations due to come into force on 1 October 2011 are under review
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 30 2010

Regulations to provide that agency workers have the same basic working and employment conditions as permanent staff were due to come into force on 1 October 2011; however, the government has announced that these are to be reviewed


The EAT clarifies Tribunal's approach on making reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 30 2010

The EAT has held that when determining whether an employer has complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), the first step is to consider whether making the adjustment would overcome the disadvantage suffered by the disabled person in the case of Wilson v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Job Centre Plus) and Others


Additional paternity leave and pay - new regulations apply to babies born after 3 April 2011
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 30 2010

New Regulations to facilitate the introduction of additional paternity leave and pay came into force on 6 April 2010, but will only take effect for parents of babies due on or after 3 April 2011 (or children matched for adoption on or after that date


Disability discrimination: the EAT has held that an employer's failure to make reasonable adjustments to avoid dismissing a disabled employee was sufficient to render the dismissal itself an act of discrimination
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 2 2009

The EAT has held that an employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments to avoid dismissing a disabled employee was sufficient to render the dismissal itself an act of discrimination in the case of Fareham College Corporation v Walters EAT UKEAT007609


Compromise agreements: the High Court has held that a compromise agreement was unenforceable as the NHS Trust employer had acted outside its powers by agreeing an "irrationally generous" compensation package
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 2 2009

The High Court has held that a compromise agreement was unenforceable as the NHS Trust employer had acted outside its powers by agreeing an "irrationally generous" compensation package in the case of Gibb v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust 2009 EWHC 862