Pursuant to a construction contract D had agreed to carry out preliminary ground work on C's site. D delayed carrying out the works. D rendered a number of invoices some of which were paid but a number of which were not. D issued a statutory demand in respect of the outstanding invoices. C contended it had incurred additional financing charges as a result of D’s delays which it was entitled to recover from D and which, once offset, reduced D's claim to nil (and meant that C was owed money). C ...
|
The court ruled that a change in surname and an order under s.91(14) Children Act 1989 were both in the best interests of children where their father had pursued an abusive course of behaviour towards the mother and made threats within the proceedings to abduct the children.
|
Race Discrimination Against Parliamentary Candidates: In Labour Party v Ashan, the House of Lords held that a political party in selecting candidates is not conferring an 'authorisation or qualification' thereby enabling someone to be engaged in a profession. Accordingly section 12 of the Race Relations Act 1976 did not apply to the selection of parliamentary candidates who considered that a failure to select was on grounds of race. However the House of Lords held that the Labour Party was an 'a ...
|
Religion or Belief The appellant was a Justice of the Peace. He sat on the Family Panel which, inter alia, places children for adoption. He objected to the possibility that he might be required to place a child with a same sex couple. The reason he gave was that he considered that there was insufficient evidence that this was in the child’s best interests and he felt that children should not be treated like guinea pigs in the name of politically correct legislation. He asked to b ...
|
The FSA imposed a financial penalty of £70,000 (but gave a 30% reduction for early settlement which brought the figure down to £49,000) on Wills & Co for misconduct following the breach of principles 3 and 7 of the Principles for Business, in particular, for failing to ensure that its customers understood the risks involved with penny shares, and for being unclear, unfair and misleading when advising on the shares.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason The employee was dismissed, on the employers’ case as redundant in the course of a re-organisation. They relied on redundancy as their reason for dismissal. The employee’s claims that she had been unfairly dismissed and was the victim of discrimination, both historic and in the re-organisation, and other claims failed.On appeal the employee asserted (1) that the Tribunal erred in law in finding that th ...
|
The court dismissed a mother's appeal against a judge's refusal to make an order for post adoption contact under s.26 Adoption and Children Act 2000. The guardian had strongly supported twice yearly contact and the LA's care plan was for once yearly. The court held that the judge had been entitled to prefer the evidence of the LA.
|
Award of Indemnity Costs. An application for indemnity costs against the respondent bank was granted as it had conducted its litigation in an unreasonable and unsatisfactory manner by pursuing allegations in a counterclaim that were deeply flawed from the start and had little prospect of success. It was said that where a court was considering whether a losing party’s conduct was such as to justify an indemnity costs order against that party, the minimum nature of that conduct required to engage ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Compensation Claimant dismissed on grounds of redundancy. Offered alternative employment by Respondents but declined to accept it. Dismissal held to have been automatically unfair on account of Respondents’ failure to follow steps 1 and 2 of the statutory dismissal procedure (Employment Act 2002 Sch 2 part 1). No compensation awarded, however, since virtually certain that Claimant would have lost his job in any event i.e. 100% Polkey deduction. Tribunal’s decision uphe ...
|
Contract of Employment - Mutual trust and confidence The Employment Tribunal correctly held that the Respondent company was liable for the acts of the Managing Director’s husband and so for the fundamental breach of term of trust and confidence caused by his acts. Judgment of Lindsay J (P) in Moores v Bude Stratton Town Council [2000] IRLR 676 applied.
|
| 1 |