Conflict of Law. A father's application to stay proceedings concerning his child, that had been brought by the child’s mother (in England) was stayed since those proceedings involved the same cause of action and the same parties as earlier proceedings that the father had issued in Italy. There was no aspect of the doctrine of forum conveniens upon which the court could properly rely.
|
Addition of parties under CPR Part 19. A company's application to be joined to an action as a Claimant after expiry of the limitation period was dismissed as there had not been a qualifying mistake within the meaning of CPR r.19.5(3)(a) and it was not the case that the whole claim could not be continued without the joinder for the purposes of the test of necessity in CPR r.19.5(3)(b).
|
Appeal under Section 21 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004
This was an appeal against a decision by the Additional Support Needs Tribunal dated 22 September 2006 refusing a request for a Co-ordinated Support Plan to be prepared by Stirling Council. By that decision the tribunal confirmed the decision of Stirling Council not to make a co-ordinated support plan in respect of KT. The appeal here was brought by Mrs T as K's legal guardian. The tribunal had decided that K did not require significant additional support from another appropriate agency. It was ...
|
Appeal under section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
The appellant was a part-time employee of the respondents. He claimed that he was suffering detriment in the manner in which the respondents applied the provisions of his contract of employment relating to the incidence of public holidays. He applied to the Employment Tribunal under the provisions of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (S.I.2000/1551). By a judgment dated 4 August 2005 the Employment Tribunal refused the application. The appellant app ...
|
ET findings that a decision to suspend a teaching assistant for refusing an instruction not to wear her veil when in class with pupils assisting a male teacher: was not direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief; and, though it was indirectly discriminatory on that ground, was lawful, being proportionate in support of a legitimate aim, upheld by the EAT.
|
Appeal under Section 11(1) and (7) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992
Eight huts, at the west end of Rascarrel Bay on the coast of the Solway Firth, were the subject of applications to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland under section 21(1) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979, in which the applicants claimed to be the tenants-at-will of the huts, and as such entitled under section 20(1) of the 1979 Act to acquire the landlords' interest as such in the land which was subject to the tenancies-at-will. The respondents as landlords lodged answers to the applicati ...
|
Liability for oxygen starvation at birth- ‘But For’ test. A hospital Trust was liable for the severe brain damage that the Claimant sustained during her birth due to oxygen starvation, as that damage would not have occurred but for a 20-minute delay in arranging an emergency caesarean section. This delay had been caused by breaches of the duty of care.
|
Agency Workers not Employees: The EAT has held in two cases that agency workers were not employees of the end user. In Heatherwood & Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust v Kulubowila & Ors, it was held that where the affairs of the parties are consistent with an express triangular agreement it us unnecessary to infer a contract of service between the end-user and the agency worker. Further in Astbury v Gist, the EAT demonstrated that the statutory framework does allow for an agency worker to be emplo ...
|
Triangular relationship – whether implied contract of employment between worker and end-user – strict application of Aramis principle – ET finding of implied contract reversed
|
Appeal is allowed to the extent of remitting the case back to the same Tribunal to determine solely the issue of whether or not had a fair procedure been conducted, the dismissal would in any event have occurred, or not, as the case may be and in any event to make the probability assessment in percentage terms that we laid down in the California Cookie case.
|
| 1 |