Jurisdictional Points: The Claimant signed a contract of employment with T.HQ. She thought it was owned by, and the trading name of, D. She had not heard of S Ltd now in liquidation which was the owner of T.HQ and of which D was a director. On the Employment Judge’s finding of unpaid wages, the order was made against T.HQ and D jointly and severally. On appeal HELD the order was wrongly made against D. The name of the Respondent was corrected to S Ltd under E ...
|
Constructive Dismissal: The Employment Tribunal did not err in finding the conduct of the Respondent breached the implied term of trust and the Claimant resigned for that reason. The employment status of the Claimant was not an issue at the Employment Tribunal and could not be raised now. The Respondent, a solicitor, conducted himself unreasonably in failing to take steps in preparation for the hearing, in not attending and threatening costs against the Claimant. If the Claimant, a soli ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: THe EAT found that the Tribunal was correct in finding that the employers failed to consult properly on the size of the pool, but were in error in finding that the pool had to be two. Unfair dismissal point upheld.
|
Unfair Dismissal: Employment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses; but that it did not amount to gross misconduct therefore the dismissal was unfair. Applying s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, finding of unfair dismissal was reversed on appeal. However, in light of Employment Tribunal’s finding that conduct was not gross misconduct (entitling employer to summarily dismiss Claimant) his claim for noti ...
|
Criminal Appeal by Stated Case:- The appellant was convicted of the following charge after trial:- "on 11 July 2009 in North Marketgait at Eastern Cemetery, Arbroath Road Dundee, you DF and GD did commit an offence of public indecency in that you, DF did perform oral sex on GD.” The sheriff held that the appellant had performed oral sex on her male co-accused and the act was committed "in public" in the sense required to amount to an offence of public indecency. In the Stated Case the ...
|
Criminal Appeal:- The respondent attempted to institute summary proceedings against the appellant in respect of a charge of speeding in 2009. Following repeated correspondence between those acting for the appellant and the respondents it appeared that the complaint was never properly served upon the appellant. Further proceedings were instituted in which a complaint was successfully served. On 30 October the appellant's solicitor wrote to the respondent pleading not guilty to the charge on ...
|
The seizure of journalistic material that revealed the identity of sources was a breach of Article 10. Appropriate procedural safeguards were necessary: such disclosures should only take place after independent review by a court or other impartial body.
|
There was credible evidence that D intended to disclose information as to C’s private life, in respect of which there was no public interest, and as such an injunction was warranted. Anonymity was necessary as details of the nature of the private information had already been published in the press.
|
An injunction was granted to restrain the Defendant from continuing to publish words as he had threatened to do so, had not indicated that he had any defence and the Claimant was likely to establish at trial that the publication should not be allowed.
|
The Court assessed the appropriate sum in damages for libellous postings on internet forums, which stated that the claimant's distance learning courses were a ‘scam’, at £50,000, which was the sum necessary to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations.
|
| 1 |