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 103

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


Court of Appeal rules on compulsory retirement at 65
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • September 6 2010

In Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes and Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills the Court of Appeal upheld a tribunal decision that a law firm's rule that its partners should be compulsorily retired on reaching the age of 65 could be justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims


Phasing out the default retirement age
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • September 6 2010

As noted above in Seldon v Clarkson Wright, the government has invited consultation on the proposal to scrap the default retirement age from 1 October 2011


Right to manifest religious belief
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • April 4 2013

The key issue for the European Court of Human Rights in Eweida and Others v UK was whether a fair balance had been struck between an individual's


Reinstatement is a reasonable adjustment
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • January 5 2011

In Hinsley v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary the EAT held that the Chief Constable of West Mercia should have offered reinstatement as a 'reasonable adjustment' to an employee with depression who resigned from the police force


Without prejudice rule kept in check
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 10 2010

The EAT in Woodward v Santander UK Plc considered the ambit of the without prejudice rule in settlement negotiations


Unlimited loss of earnings following breach of disciplinary procedure
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 10 2010

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust the Court of Appeal overturned an EAT's decision that damages were limited to notice and a notional period for a disciplinary process where a contractual procedure was not adhered to


12 month non solicitation clause too long
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 10 2010

The High Court has ruled in Associated Foreign Exchange Ltd v International Foreign Exchange (UK) Ltd that Mr Abbassi, an account executive who had worked for AFEX and moved to a competitor, IFX , was not bound by a 12 month non solicitation of customers or potential customers clause


Court of Appeal overturns High Court in BA strike injunction
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • July 10 2010

The Court of Appeal's decision in Unite the Union v British Airways plc, overturning the High Court's ruling that BA had an arguable case that Unite had failed to take reasonable steps to inform its members of the strike ballot result, has now been published


Employee can bring breach of TUPE information and consultation claim where there are no employee representatives
  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • United Kingdom
  • January 5 2011

The EAT in Hickling (ta Imperial Day Nursery) and others v Marshall applied the EAT's decision in Howard v Millrise that an affected employee could bring a claim for breach of the duty to inform under Regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 where there was no union or elected representative