- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (66)
- Employment (65)
- Real Estate (23)
- Company/Commercial (19)
- Family (14)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (12)
- Banking / Finance (9)
- Tax (9)
- Corporate (8)
- Funds (6)
- Information Technology (6)
- Insolvency & restructuring (6)
- Personal tax / Trusts (6)
- Planning (6)
- Construction (5)
- Environment (5)
- Financial services (5)
- Charities (4)
- Crime (4)
- Energy (4)
- Immigration (4)
- Pensions (4)
- Regulatory and compliance (4)
- Human Rights (3)
- Other (3)
- Business Tax (2)
- Competition/EU (2)
- Healthcare (2)
- Insurance/reinsurance (2)
- Licensing/Gaming/Betting (2)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (2)
- Clinical/Medical Negligence (1)
- Intellectual Property (1)
- PPP/PFI/Commercial projects (1)
- Privacy and reputation (1)
- Private Client (1)
- Private Equity (1)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
In the case of Toal and another v GB Oils, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decided that it does not.
Expressing offers to settle simply as ‘without prejudice’ or even ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ may not be sufficient to leave the door open for further negotiation.
In an ongoing shareholder dispute over control of the parent company of London hotels, the Court of Appeal has considered the effect of a good faith clause in a Shareholders’ Agreement to be minimal.
The Insolvency Service and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have published consultations proposing amendments to the regulations affecting insolvency practitioners.
As publicly funded bodies, both academy trusts and governing bodies of maintained schools will need to comply with the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.
This briefing note is intended to provide guidance to insolvency practitioners who wish to consider whether to seek repayment on behalf of the company of dividends paid to shareholders.
This note is a reminder of the time limits within which challenges under the Public Contract Regulations 2006 may be brought.
The introduction in the present tax year 2013–14 of a new comprehensive statutory test for residence is an enormously significant step for HMRC to take.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently clarified its position on workplace victimisation and dismissal in Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd.
The Court of Appeal has somewhat reluctantly held in Black & Anor v Wilkinson  EWCA Civ 820 that refusing to allow an unmarried gay couple to stay in a double room at a bed and breakfast is direct discrimination.
In Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and others, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) held that an employment tribunal could make a costs award that the paying party, in this case the Claimant, could not afford.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has re-written an act of parliament to make it compliant with European law and increased the scope of the duty to consult with unions or employee representatives in a redundancy situation.
In November 2012, Theresa May launched a 10-week consultation on implementing a minimum price of 45p per unit of alcohol and banning multi-purchase deals.
The EAT has considered whether a dismissal was fair in circumstances where the dismissal was necessary because a third party had refused to allow the employee to work for it.
The Employment Tribunal has provided guidance on what constitutes a ‘proportionate means’ of achieving a ‘legitimate aim’ when treating an employee or partner differently because of his age.
Ms Bangura was summarily dismissed on grounds of misconduct by Southern Cross about six weeks before the care home at which she worked was transferred to Four Seasons.
In a recent case the EAT has decided that the Equality Act does cover post-employment victimisation.
The Supreme Court’s ‘third way’ in Petrodel v Prest could throw up more problems and more opportunities for litigation than it solves.
A ruling ordering Westminster City Council to repay more than £1m in fees collected from sex shops in the borough may have major implications for licensing authorities across the country.
A recent High Court decision confirms that it is not possible for a breach of contract to be repudiatory in a partnership context, even where the partnership consists of only two partners.