The case was concerned about whether certain consultancy services provided by a Swiss company with a UK branch was liable to pay VAT on such services in the UK. The Court of Appeal found that the supply of services was made to a UK establishment and therefore VAT was due to be paid in the UK.
|
Automatic unfair dismissal under s.98A(1) ERA. Order for reinstatement made. ET found no Polkey deduction after considering Burchell test. Substituted own view as to what would be a reasonable investigation. No adequate fact-finding or reasoning to explain finding of no contributory fault. Appeals allowed; remedy remitted.
|
Appeal against certain findings of race and religious discrimination and disability discrimination upheld. Cross appeals against victimisation discrimination and breach of contract rejected. Employment Tribunal failed to apply established principles properly in determining whether there was direct discrimination. Case remitted to fresh Tribunal on the race and religious discrimination grounds only.
|
Claimant’s application for a Review of ET decision made late, but time extended and a Review granted on the papers of the Tribunal’s earlier decision to strike out the claim for Claimant’s failure actively to pursue it. No hearing held, despite a clear dispute on the evidence between the parties and the Tribunal’s failure to consider the various matters in CPR3.9 in order to decide how to deal “justly” with the application. Appeal allowed.
|
Practice and Procedure - 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
On 14 October 2004 the Claimant claimed constructive unfair dismissal arising out of four acts of the Respondent. No grievance pursuant to the 2004 Regulations had been presented. The Employment Tribunal allowed the case to proceed at a pre-hearing review under s95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) in respect of only one of the four acts, i.e. the one which was the subject of a grievance presented before the regulations came into effect. On appeal it was held that it was not possible to sev ...
|
C and D were parties to a sub contract wherein C agreed to carry out structural steelworks and roofworks. Subsequently heads of agreement were concluded. Disputes between C and D emerged and a supplemental agreement was concluded amending the sub-contract by provided that the provisions of the agreement were in full and final settlement of all disputed up to 15 February 2004. A draft certificate was subsequently prepared that included a figure for "gross evaluation to February 15, 2004". Follow ...
|
It was plain that the owner of a property had not expressly or by implication granted a tenancy to the occupier prior to the coming into force of the Housing Act 1996, s.96.
|
A court is entitled as a matter of construction to refer to a draft lease and infer words omitted in the actual lease where it is clear words have been omitted and what is the gist of those words.
|
The shareholders and former directors of a hotel company wished to pursue an action in conspiracy on behalf of the company against its financiers and accountants. Successful at first instance their complaints against their solicitors in respect of the handling of their appeal and in particular for failing to obtain new valuation evidence to be introduced on appeal. Although the failure by the solicitors to arrange a conference with Leading Counsel in sufficient time meant that it was too late to ...
|
Where the treating doctor should have referred the Claimant to a specialist the Bolitho test is inapplicable to the test of causation.
|
| 1 |