Articles

This month Jonathan Walters summarises new cases of interest which have been reported in the last few weeks and gives a short summary of each one, including Patel v Oldham Borough Council UKEAT/0025/09, Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe Case C‑341/08, and Parviainen v Finnair Oyj (C-471/08).

This is November’s up-dating bulletin, in which Jonathan Walters picks out a few new cases of interest which have been reported in the last few weeks and gives you a short summary of each one.

Ryan Amesbury reviews further recent Employment cases.

David Callow examines recent cases including Amnesty International v Ahmed, Da'Bell v NSPCC, and Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure.

- To what extent must a Tribunal have regard to the injustice caused to an employee?

After a somewhat extended summer break due to technical difficulties the employment law bulletin is back up and running. Since the date of the last bulletin sadly Mr Philip Marshall of Iscoed Chambers, Swansea passed away after a long illness. Philip was a highly regarded lawyer on the Wales and Chester Circuit. He was an extremely able opponent and a real gentleman both in and out of Tribunal. He will be sadly missed.

Mona Bayoumi reviews notable Employment Cases from the past few weeks.

On 16th July 2009 Civitas Employment Team delivered a seminar to an audience of public sector lawyers and HR professionals at Gwent Police headquarters in Cwmbran. The talk, focusing on the Public Interest Disclosure provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was presented by the head of the Employment Team Jonathan Walters, who as “the heavyweight employment practitioner on circuit” (Legal 500 2008) was ideally suited to deal with the inevitable difficulties this area poses.

Jonathan Walters comments on the latest news from the Employment circuit.

Ryan Amesbury examines Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2009] UKHL 27 in which the House of Lords defines ‘equipment provided for use at work’. This follows an injury to a council care worker caused by a defective ramp at a wheel-chair user’s home which had been installed by the NHS and inspected by the council.

Robert examines the effect of the Limitation Act 1980 in relation to industrial disease cases and the challenge of identifying a person’s date of knowledge from which limitation should run. He reviews recent case law associated with establishing the ‘Date of Constructive Knowledge’ and the ‘Burden of Proof’.

Mona Bayoumi reviews the case of Carol Walton v Joanne Kirk [2009] EWHC 703 QB and examines the circumstances in which exaggerating claims may potentially lead to contempt proceedings. In this case, the defendant’s insurers, whilst not disputing liability, suspected that the claimant was exaggerating the severity of her injuries, and undertook further investigations...

Rebecca Mansell reviews recent Employment Cases.

Jonathan Walters rounds up recent Employment news.

At a time of daily announcements of redundancies, an important case has addressed length of service as a basis for selecting for redundancy. Whilst the Court of Appeal has concluded that it is discriminatory on grounds of age for there to be included in a redundancy selection policy a criterion for scoring on the basis of length of service, the step was not unlawful since the provision was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of rewarding loyalty and helping to create a stable workforce. The decision however has important implications for those with conduct of redundancy selection.

Contributory Negligence in Road Traffic Accidents: The Importance of Medical Evidence: Smith v Finch [2009] EW 8C53 (QB)

Richard reviews some recent Personal Injury Cases to Note

In X & Y (Protected Parties Represented by their Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v Hounslow London Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 286 the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the common law duty of care owed by Local Authorities.

Glenn Fraser Towlson –v - Charles Puckey. Liability Trial: Motorcyclist and pillion passenger were seriously injured and brought their claim against the pedestrian on a signal controlled pedestrian crossing.

Jonathan Walters discusses a number of interesting new developments in the last month including an Employment Tribunal ruling that a belief that action needed to be taken to cut carbon emissions to avoid climate change is a philosophical belief within the meaning of the Religion and Belief Regulations.

Ryan Amesbury reviews the recent cases of note.

The QBD has handed down a high-profile decision in the case of RDF Media Group v Clements. High-profile not only for the media personalities involved but also for the decision.

Anthony Vines takes a look at a selection of this month's most interesting comments and queries on the subject of Employment Law.

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (“the regulations”) were made under the European Communities Act 1972 in order to implement in domestic law the UK’s obligations under the Equal Treatment in Employment Directive 2000/78/EC. The regulations are broadly similar to existing discrimination legislation, offering protection in the employment arena for those who hold a particular “religion or belief”.

Coleman v Attridge Law On the 27th November 2008 the Employment Tribunal announced that it will read UK law consistently with European law to give protection to Sharon Coleman (and others in similar circumstances) with immediate effect and retrospectively to 1st October 2004 the date on which the amended Disability Discrimination Act came into force. This is undoubtedly an important decision and one which is likely to have a number of significant consequences for employers. It does not, however, go as far as some have suggested.

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (“the regulations”) were made under the European Communities Act 1972 in order to implement in domestic law the UK’s obligations under the Equal Treatment in Employment Directive 2000/78/EC. The regulations are broadly similar to existing discrimination legislation, offering protection in the employment arena for those who hold a particular “religion or belief”.