Employment News — 27 January 2014: bare necessities: implied contract between agency worker and client was not necessary
The claimant in Smith v Carillion (JM) Ltd worked in the construction industry through an employment agency. He brought claims, against two end-user companies, of detrimental treatment on grounds of his trade union and safety representative activities. He did not have an express contract and the tribunal ruled that no contract could be implied, so his claims could not be heard.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. The claimant had raised five factors as indicative of a contract…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The claimant in Jobcentre Plus v Jamil worked in a job centre some 80 minutes’ travel time from home.
China’s new Trademark Law will come into effect on 1 May 2014. To implement the new law, new regulations have been drafted.
Analysis from The Lawyer
When a firm shouts loudly about a landmark merger, as SJ Berwin did when it joined forces with King & Wood Mallesons, departures are always likely to come under the spotlight.
The Lawyer’s latest Top 50 litigation firms list shows that business for dispute specialists is roaring along while new in-depth detail reveals the winning strategies