The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Court: CA (Peter Gibson LJ, Ward LJ and Sir John Vinelott) 7/11/9Summary: Employee's appeal against dismissal of his allegations of victimisation in rejecting his two job applications for employment with London Regional Transport and London Underground.
Two appeals by a former station foreman employed by the respondent against 1996 orders of the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowing appeals by the London Regional Transport, (LRT) and its subsidiary, London Underground Ltd (LUL), respectively, against decisions of an industrial tribunal in June 1994. The appellant, 57, of Indian racial origin, has worked in the UK since 1969. He was employed by LUL from 1978 to 1988 as a station foreman, from January 1989 for four months as a travel information assistant with LRT, and from May 1989 to October 1989 as a duty train manager with LUL. Prior to his two applications in these appeals he had brought eight complaints to the industrial tribunal alleging racial discrimination and victimisation by LRT and LUL and certain of their employees (see Nagarajan v Agnew: Swiggs v Nagarajan). On one complaint he was awarded £2,650 compensation. In the present appeals the appellant alleged victimisation contrary to s.2(1) and s.4 of the Race Relations Act 1976, on the grounds that LUL rejected his application for the post of a word processor operator and LRT rejected his application for the post of a travel information assistant.