Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal Dismissal for gross misconduct – argument based on disparate treatment of alleged comparators failed on the facts.
|
Victimisation Discrimination - Whistleblowing The issue raised on this appeal was whether the whistle blowing provisions contained in section 43A to section 43M of the Employment Rights Act by the Public Information Disclosure Act 1998 afford protection for disclosure that does not reveal any “wrongdoing” or “failure” by the employer or person for whom the employer is responsible? The EAT held that such protection is given to the employee.
|
The appellant (D) appealed against an order for his extradition primarily on the grounds that his extradition would breach art.3 by reason of the prison conditions in the prison in which he would be detained. It was argued that once cogent evidence of possible breaches have been raised, the legal burden of proving an Article 3 case shifts from the claimant to the defendant. That evidence showed that prison conditions in Kenya are so bad a breach of art.3 would result. HELD: The burde ...
|
In considering whether four presentations to insurers had been sufficient to bring subsequent claims within the strictures of a claims notification clause the Court of Appeal partially overturned the first instance judge. In particular the judge should not have rejected insurers’ concession that the second presentation was a limited notification. Although a claims bordereau could not extend a notification it could assist in its interpretation. The accompanying claims bordereau referring to “poss ...
|
The Court Martial Appeal Court made an order under s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 granting anonymity to five soldiers in proceedings against them for conspiracy to defraud, as there was a real and immediate risk to the lives of two of the soldiers if any one of the five was identified.
|
Jurisdictional Points - Claim in time and effective date of termination Where a decision to dismiss is communicated by a letter sent to the employee at home, and the employee has neither gone away deliberately to avoid receiving the letter nor avoided opening and reading it, the effective date of termination is when the letter is read by the employee, not when it arrives in the post.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Mitigation of loss The Tribunal incorrectly applied a percentage reduction to losses by reason of failure to mitigate. The Tribunal should have fixed a date when they believed the Claimant would have found employment and calculated losses accordingly.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Automatically unfair reasons The Tribunal were correct in reducing compensation by 100% in an automatic unfair dismissal where the breaches of procedure would have made no difference to the decision to dismiss for redundancy.
|
The appellants extradition was sought by an Italian judicial authority pursuant to an EAW. However, they contended that on being returned to Italy there was a real risk that the Italian Government would, in breach of art.3 of the Convention, allow their onward transmission to Tunisia. HELD: In dismissing the appeal, the test for the court to apply was whether, if the appellants were extradited, they would face a real risk of being deported to Tunisia. That risk had to be assessed on the evidence ...
|
Pursuant to s.4 CDA 1998 there is no right of appeal against a decision by the magistrates’ court to vary or discharge an ASBO. The absence of such a right does not violate Art.6 ECHR.
|
| 1 |