By Catherine Hart on 23/07/2008 19:33
This case concerned the tenancy of a croft. The Pursuer/ Respondent was the widow of the tenant and the Defender/ Appellant was the Executor Nominate of the landlord of the croft at the time of the tenant’s death. The tenant had left a Will in which he did not make specific reference to the tenancy of the croft but directed that the residue of his estate was to pass to the Pursuer. In terms of s10 the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, a crofter could bequeath the tenancy of his crof ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 17/04/2008 08:44
Practice and Procedure - Costs Position of costs order made by Tribunal because of conduct where the ground upon which an appeal is allowed is independent of and unrelated to the reasons for which the Tribunal made the costs order.
|
By Rachel Henry on 24/01/2008 14:39
Reclaiming Motion - Petition for judicial review, the petitioners were seeking to set aside an arbitral award. The dispute which was submitted to arbitration arose out of a contract between the petitioners and the first respondents in terms of which the petitioners were to act as managers of a semi-submersible drilling unit owned by the first respondents. A preliminary issue had arisen as to whether the application for setting aside the award was timeously made. That issue was debated before the ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 19/12/2007 16:35
Unfair dismissal - Tribunal procedureThe Employment Tribunal erred in failing to go through the steps required for conduct dismissals approved in BHS v Burchell, Sainsbury’s v Hitt, and Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust v Ogunlana. Although it is not an error for an Employment Tribunal not to set out in its reasons all of the matters in Employment Tribunal Rule 30(6), there are likely to be difficulties in understanding the Judgment if it does not. Case remitted to a fre ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 19/12/2007 16:29
Equal Pay Act – Material factor defenceThe claimant police officers received less than their male comparator doing like work. The reason was that he worked shifts involving night work and received a special payment (effectively a bonus) for this, but they did not work those hours because they were incompatible with their child care responsibilities. The Tribunal held that it was a legitimate objective to reward night work, but that the Chief Constable could have paid the claimants as thoug ...
|
| 1 |