- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (55)
- Regulatory and compliance (11)
- Company/Commercial (8)
- In-House (8)
- Healthcare (6)
- Immigration (6)
- Human Rights (5)
- Corporate (4)
- Crime (4)
- Family (3)
- Personal Injury (3)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (3)
- Tax (3)
- Charities (2)
- Clinical/Medical Negligence (2)
- Construction (2)
- Environment (2)
- Professional Indemnity/Negligence (2)
- Real Estate (2)
- Agriculture (1)
- Banking / Finance (1)
- Competition/EU (1)
- Consumer/Retail (1)
- Financial services (1)
- Funds (1)
- Information Technology (1)
- Insolvency & restructuring (1)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (1)
- Planning (1)
- Public Sector Watch (1)
- Travel and Tourism (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
Judge not convinced that the fact the Claimant was required to be on the premises meant sleeping was working.
Unison appeal dismissed. Now we await the review.
Retail giant Poundstretcher has been fined £65,000 after its working conditions in one of it’s Lincolnshire warehouses was described as a “disaster waiting to happen”.
You like logic puzzles? You’ll love this...
Jessica Smeaton looks at the government’s new consultation paper and the impact on large employers.
Advice about employment status is equally important to employers and the ‘self-employed’.
How interesting: the public interest disclosure requirement of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act
Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view?
TUPE applies where a client decides to engage a new service provider instead of an existing one, but what if the client instructs the existing service provider to remove an employee from the contract before the TUPE transfer takes place?
The difficulty in TUPE transfers in deciding which employees are transfered to the new employer if the client has given an express instruction that it does not want a particular employee to continue to work on the contract.
There is always an employment law dimension in Queen’s Speeches, and this one is no different, says Mugni Islam-Choudhury.
There’s less Employment Tribunal advocacy work around now, but one area developing fast is investigations.
The EAT has recently ruled that for the purpose of the TUPE Service Provision Change rules in certain circumstances a ‘client’ is not limited to one legal entity and can include a group of clients who act in concert.
It goes without saying that physical violence in the workplace is unacceptable. However, that doesn’t mean that the employee should be automatically sacked.
Where is the boundary between assistance and being in the arena, and how does the internet impact on that?
Helen Barney discusses the landmark Employment Appeal Tribunal case concerning holiday pay of Bear Scotland & others v Fulton & Ors, Hertel (UK) Ltd v Mr Woods & Ors and Amec Group Ltd v Mr Law & Ors.
Anthony Korn considers the Court of Appeal ruling in Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rogers .
In a health and safety prosecution concerning a dairy farm Tim Pole of No5 Chambers acted for the HSE.
Excelerate Technology Ltd paid its former technology director Lindsay Cumberbatch £62,500 as consideration for agreeing to the extension of post-termination restrictions at the time of his redundancy.
Russell Holland reviews the case of Game v Laws, which concerned an employee who was dismissed for making offensive “tweets”.
Naomi Owen looks at the recent decision from HHJ Eady QC in Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust .