- Employment (71)
- Company/Commercial (22)
- Regulatory and compliance (10)
- Corporate (7)
- Intellectual Property (7)
- Banking / Finance (5)
- Pharma/Biotech (5)
- Competition/EU (3)
- Family (3)
- Healthcare (3)
- Crime (2)
- Energy (2)
- Financial services (2)
- Funds (2)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (2)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (2)
- Commodities (1)
- Environment (1)
- Human Rights (1)
- Immigration (1)
- Information Technology (1)
- Insolvency & restructuring (1)
- Insurance/reinsurance (1)
- Pensions (1)
- Personal Injury (1)
- Professional Indemnity/Negligence (1)
- Telecoms (1)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
European Commission’s public consultation on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement in the TTIP
The European Commission has opened its three-month public comment period on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement in the TIIP.
Falling between two stools — employees could not bring claims against transferee over failure to provide TUPE information
Allen v Morrisons Facilities Services Ltd involved the transfer of several hundred employees as part of a large-scale change of service providers of the council’s housing maintenance services.
The claimant in Panayiotou v Kernagahn was subjected to a series of detriments and was ultimately dismissed by his employer for having an incompatible business interest.
The new Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622), which came into effect on 3 March 2014, is a substantial rewrite of Hong Kong companies law.
Employment News — 14 April 2014: the final straw — employer entitled to take strict view in light of previous warnings
Before his dismissal, the claimant in Disotto Food Ltd v Carlos Santos for misconduct he had been given three warnings about his conduct.
In 2008, the regime for preventing illegal working in the UK was changed by the introduction of civil penalties under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
Employment News — 14 April 2014: parental control: employees were TUPE transferred after share purchase by subsidiary
Jackson Lloyd employed 400 people working at various sites on social-housing maintenance. When JL got into financial difficulties, its shares were bought by a subsidiary of Mears Group.
This issue of Employment News focuses on the latest batch of employment reforms, including ACAS early claim conciliation and statutory discrimination questionnaires.
Employment News — 7 April 2014: High Court to the rescue. Restrictive covenant is re-written to make it work
The applicant employer in Prophet plc v Huggett sold specialist computer software for use in the fresh-produce industry.
Selecting someone for redundancy still needs to be clearly shown to be an objective and fair process.
The Supreme Court has issued a ruling striking down the aggregate limits on individual campaign contributions under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
The claimant in Kuehne and Nagel Ltd v Cosgrove was asked for her consent to be tested for cannabis use following what she was told was an anonymous tip-off.
Spot the difference — TUPE applied even though activities carried out in different way post transfer
The contract that was the subject of Qlog Ltd v O’Brien related to the transportation of cardboard packaging goods on behalf of a client.
A bank does not need to take into account the interests of a contractual counterparty when exercising its discretion on a ‘commercially reasonable’ basis.
A number of carers were employed by Allied to look after a vulnerable adult.
The two women who brought claims in the European Court both used surrogate mothers in order to have a child.
Employers have always been reluctant to pursue a civil claim against former employees for losses incurred as a result of their negligence or misconduct.
The ECJ has confirmed that a woman who has a child by a surrogate mother is not entitled to the benefit of EU pregnancy and maternity rights.
The claimant in Lyons v DWP Jobcentre Plus argued that her dismissal was either direct pregnancy discrimination or direct sex discrimination.