- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (79)
- Employment (67)
- Real Estate (35)
- Company/Commercial (25)
- Family (17)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (14)
- Tax (14)
- Insolvency & restructuring (11)
- Banking / Finance (10)
- Planning (10)
- Corporate (9)
- Personal tax / Trusts (9)
- Regulatory and compliance (8)
- Construction (7)
- Crime (6)
- Environment (6)
- Funds (6)
- Information Technology (6)
- Energy (5)
- Financial services (5)
- Pensions (5)
- Charities (4)
- Human Rights (4)
- Immigration (4)
- Business Tax (3)
- Healthcare (3)
- Licensing/Gaming/Betting (3)
- Other (3)
- Private Client (3)
- Competition/EU (2)
- Insurance/reinsurance (2)
- Intellectual Property (2)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (2)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (2)
- Clinical/Medical Negligence (1)
- Commodities (1)
- PPP/PFI/Commercial projects (1)
- Privacy and reputation (1)
- Private Equity (1)
- Telecoms (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
CJD v Royal Bank of Scotland considered the dismissal of an employee accused of assaulting his partner (who was also his colleague) outside of work.
It will sometimes be the case that an individual will be neither an employee nor a worker and thereby without any protection against unfair dismissal or discrimination.
Heads Up — December 2013 download
Winckworth Sherwood has released its December issue of Heads Up, which discusses the issues that faced education throughout 2013.
The Court of Appeal has delivered some welcome Christmas cheer for landlords.
The EAT has upheld a decision that ECFRS was not reasonably expected to know (from a legal perspective) that one of its employees was disabled.
The EAT has emphasised the correct test for determining whether an employee has resigned in response to fundamental breaches by his or her employer.
It is not outside the scope of reasonable adjustments to require an employer to fund private medical treatment
The decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Croft Vets v Butcher may be surprising and even alarming to employers.
The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision that a voluntary redundancy scheme, which benefited older employees over younger ones, constituted unfavourable treatment on the grounds of age.
Yasmin Prest won her landmark divorce ruling when the Supreme Court ordered Mr Prest’s companies to transfer to her a number of properties as part of her lump-sum award.
The Court of Appeal has declined to introduce the detailed guidelines on awards for injury to feelings for discrimination into the DPA regime.
The EAT has considered whether a successful internal appeal could ‘cure’ an initial decision to refuse an employee’s flexible working application that was indirectly discriminatory because of sex.
Shambolic redundancy scoring was an honest attempt to be fair: Osoba v the Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Constabulary
In Osoba v the Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Constabulary, the EAT was not convinced that police officer Miss Pritchard had any discriminatory intentions.
The EAT has ruled in the case of Blackburn v Aldi Stores that a failure to provide an impartial grievance process can amount to a breach of the duty of trust and confidence.
Many developers frequently rely upon their right to terminate a contract if a project is severely delayed by the actions of another party.
Developers should be fully aware of these neighbourly issues and risks, otherwise they could be faced with delays, increased costs and potentially an injunction.
Housebuilders, large and small, are all too familiar with the well-established ‘weapons of choice’ aimed at delaying or thwarting development.
To avoid last-minute hurdles, there are a number of points to be aware of during the development and plot sales process.
Many new developments include communal boiler systems or energy centres, which are used to supply hot water and/or electricity to individual homes.
Mrs Whiteley (the claimant) commenced employment with HMRC on 23 October 1978 and was still employed when this case was heard.
The EAT has considered whether the tribunal at first instance should have taken into account a claimant’s post-termination conduct when determining his award of compensation.