Appellant meaning

In this edition: Employment contract Pay Protected characteristics Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Prohibited conduct protection at work Equality of terms (equal pay) Employment Appeal Tribunal Governance and regulatory Immigration Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Employment contract UKSC upholds claimants’ appeal and restores injunction in Tesco ‘fire and rehire’ case In Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) [2024] UKSC 28, Tesco moved to end employees’ contracts to remove their ‘retained pay’—a contractual financial entitlement accepted as permanent—and to offer re-engagement on new terms excluding that pay. Working with the union, USDAW, several employees obtained a High Court injunction restraining Tesco from dismissing them in order to take away the retained pay entitlement. The Court of Appeal, however, allowed Tesco’s appeal against that order. The Supreme Court has since backed the claimants’ appeal and...

Motor Insurers Bureau v Houston [2025] EWHC 3178 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the outcome may catch seasoned credit hire practitioners off guard, it was driven in large part by the precise language of the debarring order in this case. The order confined any future debarring strictly to the question of rate and made no reference to reliance on impecuniosity for the hire period or for any wider purposes; appellant counsel on appeal suggested this flowed from a legacy version of a standard form. Practitioners familiar with credit hire litigation will know that, more often than not, directions orders bar a claimant from reliance on impecuniosity for all purposes following a failure to provide financial disclosure. Even so, the judgment is a clear reminder that the courts will apply the ordinary and natural meaning to the words of any order, and practitioners should take care to verify the exact wording of a debarring order in every case. That is not, however, to suggest the...

In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Contracts Data protection Public procurement Sale and supply of goods Supply of services International Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA rulings— 8 May 2024. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) considered a complaint about a website promoting a gambling offer that did not set out key entry conditions. The complainant queried whether the advertisement misled consumers. The ASA agreed and upheld the complaint. See: LNB News 08/05/2024 29. Contracts Supreme Court clarifies law on damages and assessment of goods (Sharp Corp Ltd (Respondent) v Viterra BV (previously known as Glencore Agriculture BV) (Appellant)). In Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV (previously known as Glencore Agriculture BV) [2024] UKSC 14, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and also allowed the cross-appeal, sending the Awards back to the Appeal Board for reconsideration. Lord...

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑612/17, which in part sustained an application to annul the Commission’s decision of 27 June 2017 in Google Search (Shopping) (AT.39740). Outcome On 11 January 2024, Advocate General Kokott issued her opinion recommending that the Court of Justice uphold the €2.4bn fine imposed on Google for giving preferential treatment to its own comparison shopping service. Parties Appellant: Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc (together, Google) Defendants: The European Commission Background Commission investigation The Commission launched a formal investigation in November 2011 after multiple complaints, including from search service providers, alleging adverse treatment of their services in Google’s organic and sponsored results alongside alleged preferential placement of Google’s own services. On 15 April 2015, the Commission announced the opening of formal proceedings to examine whether Google breached Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU through...

Affray is an offence created by section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA 1986). It can be prosecuted in either the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. The magistrates’ court may decline jurisdiction, for instance where a weapon is involved, objects are thrown, or the behaviour results in serious injury. Elements of the offence of affray The prosecution must establish that: a person acts intentionally uses unlawful violence towards another, or threatens it; or recognises that their conduct could be violent or threatening towards another; and a person of reasonable firmness present would fear for their own safety Where two or more individuals use or threaten unlawful violence, their conduct is assessed collectively to determine whether the offence is made out. In Dragjoshi v Croydon Magistrates’ Court, the Appellant appealed by way of case stated, disputing whether the court could convict without reliable identification evidence, particularly where some individuals were accepted as attempting to prevent violence...

Over 800,000 charity trustees are thought to operate in England and Wales, with many serving on a voluntary basis. Trustees are the decision-makers, and every charity trustee-paid or unpaid-must use their decision-making authority in a way that satisfies legal obligations drawn from a range of sources. If they do not, they can, in the end, be held responsible for any failure. This Practice Note offers a summary of the principles that govern charity trustee decision-making in England and Wales. Key principles For general guidance on trustees’ powers and duties, see Practice Note: Charity trustees-duties and liabilities. The main principles for trustee decision-making are: When making a decision, trustees owe fiduciary duties to: operate within the powers conferred by the charity constitution act in good faith always act solely in the charity’s interests In addition, trustees must: ensure they are properly informed about the decision take...

In the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal No: XXXAPPLICANT NAME – AppellantANDSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Application for costs under 9 (2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, SI 2014/2604 1 Introduction This application is brought pursuant to paragraph 9 (2) (b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, SI 2014/2604. The appellant seeks a costs order on the basis that the respondent has behaved unreasonably in the conduct of these proceedings. 2 This application has been made in-time, within 28 days of the date of [ insert relevant event or decision ] and has been served on the respondent. 3 Background The appellant is pursuing an appeal against a refusal of her human rights claim. A’s claim was refused on [ insert date ] and an appeal was submitted on [ insert date ]. The Tribunal listed a substantive hearing for [ date ] at [...

TC/[ insert year ]/[ insert case number ] In the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) Between: [ Name of appellant ] Appellant and The commissioners for her majesty’s revenue & customs Respondents Bundle one: documents Tab Description Date Page Tribunal papers Tab 1 — Notice of appeal to Tribunal [ insert date ] [ insert page number ] Tab 2 — [ Appellant’s grounds of appeal [only include...

In the immigration and asylum chamber [ Insert Home Office, Port and appeal reference numbers as appropriate ] First-tier Tribunal [ Insert venue ] Among : [ Name of Appellant ] Appellant – versus – Secretary of State for...