Disability Discrimination and Failure to Consult over Redeployment: In Scottish & Southern Energy v Mackay, the EAT confirmed the decision of Tarbuck that it was not open to argue than an employer who fails to investigate redeployment or reasonable adjustments is thereby immediately in breach of the DDA. It is necessary for the Claimant to go further and establish precisely what reasonable adjustments could have been made to retain him / her in the workplace.
|
Judgment Set Aside for Equitable Forebearance. A local authority successfully applied for an order to set aside a judgment against it. The authority originally made an admission of primary liability (subject to a reduction for contributory negligence) but sought to resile from this in its Defence. The allocation questionnaire, case summary and witness statements were all prepared on the basis that liability was in issue; the Judge held that this amounted to approbation and reprobation. It was h ...
|
Services provided by Sole Proprietor Solicitor Liable for VAT. A sole proprietor solicitor failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that his VAT assessment was incorrect. The services in question were to be treated as the provision of legal services rather than disbursements, which brought them within the scope of VAT. A profit element in the charge for land services took it outside the definition of ‘disbursements’ in the relevant EU Directive. The costs of telegraphic services and ...
|
The appellant mother in the proceedings in R (MG) v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2008] EWHC 1577 (above) had appealed against an order made by a family proceedings court under the Children Act 1989 s.91(14), which prevented her from applying for the further assessment of the educational needs of her son (K) without permission from the court. HELD: The s.91(14) direction was not one that it was properly open to the recorder to make, and might have appeared to convey the exercise by the ...
|
Within this matter the court isseud procedural guidance in respect of applications under art 11 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdictions and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parenta responsibility) pending the entry into force of the revised Family Proceedings Rules S! 1991/1247.
|
The CA held that the judgment of a Recorder making a residence order in favour of a mother in circumstances where there was strong expert evidence urging an order in favour of the fathre could not stand. The judge had failed to give appropriate reasons for rejecting the expert evidence and the matter was therefore remitted to a different judge.
|
Within this matter the court isseud procedural guidance in respect of applications under art 11 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdictions and recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parenta responsibility) pending the entry into force of the revised Family Proceedings Rules S! 1991/1247.
|
The CA held that the judgment of a Recorder making a residence order in favour of a mother in circumstances where there was strong expert evidence urging an order in favour of the fathre could not stand. The judge had failed to give appropriate reasons for rejecting the expert evidence and the matter was therefore remitted to a different judge.
|
Statutory Grievance Procedure: In Lovett v Evans, the EAT held that the notwithstanding that an employers should be taken to have regard to the factual background against which a written grievance letter is sent, it goes too far to impute an employer with knowledge arising from a meeting occurring after the date the grievance letter was sent. On the facts a letter complaining of nosebleeds was insufficient to amount to a statutory grievance letter complaining of pregnancy discrimination notwiths ...
|
Petition - Testamentary Intention
The petition here was brought by the executors of the late Margaret Bilsland who died on 25 April 2001 leaving a will dated 30 January 1998 . The respondents were various charities named in the will. The question posed on behalf of the petitioners was:- "Whether the petitioners as executors may distribute the part of the residue of the estate of Mrs Bilsland not bequeathed in Clause Five (one) of the Will to the beneficiaries referred to in Clause Five (two) to (nine) of the Will in the manner t ...
|
| 1 |