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 130

Liability of administrators for acts of discrimination
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • April 1 2011

In another case involving administrators, an employment tribunal somewhat controversially has held that the individual administrators could be liable as principals in an agency relationship with employees of a company in administration


TUPE: transfer of care services
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • September 22 2011

In Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v Hamshaw the EAT held that where a residential care home for vulnerable adults which had been operated by the NHS closed and the residents were returned to their homes and care transferred to two private sector care providers, TUPE did not apply


Burden of proof test in whistleblowing cases
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • January 5 2011

In Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester, the EAT disagreed with the EAT decisions in London Borough of Harrow v Knight and Aspinall v MSI Mech Forge Limited when determining whether a detriment had been suffered as a result of a whistleblowing disclosure


Retirement discussions were not age discriminatory
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • February 28 2013

Following the abolition of the default retirement age in 2011, a dismissal based on an employee's age amounts to age discrimination, unless it can be


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


Adjustments: further EAT guidance
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • November 28 2011

Further clarification on what constitutes an adjustment for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act was provided by the EAT in Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster


Reasonable adjustments: EAT guidance
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • November 28 2011

In Salford NHS Primary Care Trust v Smith the EAT decided that it was not a reasonable adjustment for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA, now enshrined in the Equality Act) to propose a career break to an employee who was on long term sick leave


References: outstanding allegations
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • November 28 2011

The Court of Appeal in Jackson v Liverpool City Council considered a claim for damages against the Council when it provided a reference which encompassed concerns about Mr Jackson’s work which had come to light after the termination of his employment


Rise in part time workers and age discrimination claims
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • November 28 2011

The ET and EAT 20102011 statistics have been published, showing a threefold increase in part time workers’ claims and a 32 increase in claims for age discrimination


Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • November 28 2011

The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011 came into force on 10 September 2011 and require any public bodies listed in Schedule 1 to the Regulations (eg FSA) to publish information demonstrating compliance with s149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 by 31 January 2012 and every year thereafter