Omnibus claim meaning

In this issue: Collective agreements Public sector Status and worker categories Immigration Cross-border, international and jurisdictional issues Tax Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Corporate governance ESG and sustainability: employment issues Bribery, modern slavery, tax evasion and fraud Unfair dismissal Employment Tribunals New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Collective agreements Supreme Court determines that mistakes in collective agreements incorporated into employment contracts can be rectified In Unite the Union v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus [2024] UKSC 37, a unanimous Supreme Court, delivered in a joint judgment by Lord Leggatt and Lady Simler, affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision and dismissed Nexus’s bid to rectify a non-enforceable pay collective agreement. Importantly, while the Court of Appeal had concluded that unenforceable collective agreements cannot be rectified, the Supreme Court recognised that...

In this issue: Status and worker categories — Whitehouse: ET allows reservist’s detriment claim under PTW Regs Pay — CSCS reform consultation ends; 2010 terms remain Tax — UT: locum urologist within IR35; HMRC April Employer Bulletin Protected characteristics — Supreme Court: EqA ‘sex’ means biological; EHRC to update Data protection — ICO issues final UK GDPR anonymisation guidance Corporate governance — EU ‘Stop the Clock’ sustainability deferral published Settlement — Updated Civil Service settlement forms replace 2019 Employment Tribunals — Manchester ET closed; new Practice Directions 21 May; AI guidance, Copilot Immigration — UK Expansion Worker: tougher ‘qualifying overseas link’; fee recoupment bans widened IRLR Highlights—May 2025 — Key EAT, ECtHR and CA rulings New and updated content — Practice Note: managing workplace temperature Dates for your diary — April–May 2025 legislation and hearings Trackers, New Q&As, Employment resources on Lexis+®, LexTalk®Employment, and alerts — updated; no Weekly Highlights 24 April; back 1 May......

Stuart Angel and 1379 others v Black Horse Ltd and other appeals [2025] EWHC 490 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision matters to all engaged in group litigation, and is especially relevant to those advising on lower-value, consumer group claims. Through its application of the factors identified in Morris, the court supplies further, practical guidance on when omnibus claim forms will be a convenient means of progressing group litigation. By deploying those Morris factors, the court has indicated how and when such forms may appropriately be used to organise cases. The judgment also clarifies the effect of decisions on common issues across related claims and signals clear judicial support for flexible, adaptable solutions in consumer finance disputes in this sphere. Key points to note: Morris v Williams remains the principal authority on issuing multiple claims in a single claim form; convenience is the only test, with no additional hurdles even where rulings on common issues do not bind...

This Practice Note concisely sets out guidance on Sanderson and Bullock orders. It explains their nature and purpose, when such orders may properly be made, and the reasoning that underpins their use. Sanderson and Bullock orders—what are they? These orders typically arise where a claimant brings a claim (in contract or in tort) against two or more separate and distinct defendants, but ultimately achieves success against only one of those defendants. Their immediate origins lie in the following authorities: Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company (1903)—the court required the losing defendant to meet the successful defendant’s costs (a Sanderson order) Bullock v London General Omnibus Co (1907)—the court directed the claimant to pay the successful defendant’s costs, but expressly allowed the claimant to include those sums within the costs to be ultimately recoverable from the losing defendant (a Bullock order) A Sanderson order is also on occasion simply described as a Bullock order (Mayer v Harte (1960)). They are closely...

Types of patent claims Patent claims fall into two principal classes: product claims and process claims. Section 60(1) of the Patents Act 1977 recognises that these two claim types attract distinct scopes of protection. Beyond this basic division, claims can also be grouped according to their specific configuration or characteristics. These configurations and characteristics have developed through case law, patent office practice and legislative developments. This Practice Note outlines several of the key claim forms practitioners most frequently meet. Claims to products A product claim targets a thing per se, such as an article, machine, substance or composition. These claims require the item to include specified technical features, whether structural or functional, to set it apart from what is known. Structural features concern the product’s physical attributes, while functional features relate to what the product can achieve. Any structure capable of performing the stated function may fall within the ambit of a functional feature, although, in practice, the patentee may be restricted to performance by structures of...