Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
What are the practical implications of this judgment? In the wake of the Court of Justice’s decision in CHEZ, it was widely understood that associative indirect discrimination would fall within section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, as, before Brexit, UK statutes required interpretation in line with EU law. While there was a first instance employment tribunal ruling in Fellows, there were no appellate judgments verifying that section 19’s language could sensibly be read in that way. With effect from 1 January 2024, the Equality Act 2010 ( Amendment) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/1425, inserted a new section 19A to encompass associative indirect discrimination claims. This amendment expressly broadens protection against indirect discrimination to people who are subjected to ‘substantively the same disadvantage’ as the group affected, even if they do not share the pertinent protected...
Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd [2024] EAT 137 What are the practical implications of this decision? The practical effect is that uncertainty endures as to whether a claimant can contend both that a co-worker imposed the detriment of dismissal and that the employer bears vicarious responsibility for that misconduct, even though the employer could not itself be personally liable for the detriment of dismissal. Pursuing such a formulation assists the claimant owing to the approach to causation, and because compensation for injury to feelings is available on a detriment claim but not for an unfair dismissal claim issued directly against the employer. In this appeal, HHJ Barklem indicates adherence to the unambiguous language of paragraph 91 in Osipov, which points to vicarious liability being capable of arising in these circumstances. That conclusion directly clashes with Bourne J’s judgment in Wicked Vision, which reached the...
Jeralyn Alicante v Ahmad Abdulhammed Ahmad ET case number 2207015/20 Employment Judge Sarah Goodman, in a judgment published on 15 August 2024, found that Jeralyn Alicante, employed as a maid by diplomat Ahmad Abdulhammed Ahmad, is unable to pursue a claim against her employer based on forced labour or servitude. Under UK law, Ahmad enjoys immunity from civil proceedings save for claims within the scope of modern slavery, and Alicante contended that this exception should set aside his diplomatic protection. The tribunal, however, rejected that case, concluding that the manner in which Alicante was treated—although she was in the UK for part of her tenure with the diplomat—did not amount to servitude. Consequently, Ahmad’s diplomatic immunity remains effective, and the tribunal lacks the jurisdiction or authority to hear and determine the claims advanced before it in these...
Zaidi v Dnata Ltd ( ET/3302697/2022) The Employment Tribunal found that Dnata Ltd discriminated against a Heathrow-based airport customer service agent and pressured her to resign by declining her request for permanent flexible working. Judge Emma Hawksworth determined that Dnata (which delivers a range of services to major airlines, including British Airways and Lufthansa) failed to accommodate the arrangement on an ongoing basis, thereby treating her unfavourably. Judge Hawksworth also concluded that the company wrongly subjected Zaidi to disciplinary proceedings for absences taken to care for her children. As the judge observed, ' The respondent's requirement for constant flexibility could be expected to have a significant discriminatory effect on female employees, taking the childcare disparity into account'.......
Leeks v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EAT 134 The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had thrown out Nkechi Leeks’s bias allegations, as a disappointed job applicant, against University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, without naming the witness the Trust had ‘lost’ and could no longer oblige to give evidence. Judge James Tayler stated that such shortcomings mean the striking-out of the claim because of the supposed ‘loss’ of a witness cannot be upheld on the present reasoning. In 2017, Leeks was offered roles by the Trust on a conditional basis, and later alleged disability bias after those offers were rescinded. Accordingly, that analysis could not stand......
Costantine v The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia ( Cultural Bureau) ( ET/2201753/2018) Employment Judge Nasreen Akhtar found the Cultural Bureau of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia subjected Antoinette Costantine to a degrading and intimidating work environment for years because of her Catholic faith, and ultimately dismissed her. Although the tribunal determined that state immunity does not arise here, the embassy has declined to accept jurisdiction of the UK courts. The Employment Appeal Tribunal refused the embassy’s challenge to the tribunal’s conclusion that it cannot rely on state immunity, and in March 2024 the Court of Appeal threw out a further appeal after the embassy failed to appoint replacement lawyers to attend the appeal, following the withdrawal of its previous representatives. On 1 July 2024 the embassy was granted permission to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court......
Employment Judge Frances Eccles, sitting at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal, held that the Mo D contravened the Part-time Workers ( Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551 by subjecting Major Charles Milroy to less favourable treatment than comparable full-time staff. As a territorial army reservist he was paid a reduced daily rate and denied entry to the armed forces’ pension scheme, per a judgment issued on 5 August 2024 and published on 12 August 2024. In the 5 August 2024 reasons, Judge Eccles concluded the claimant had been treated less favourably as a part-time worker because he was refused membership of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 ( AFPS 75) and its successor schemes, and because a divisor of 365.25 was applied to calculate his daily pay, when contrasted with the approach to full-time comparators. Judge Eccles further...
In this issue: Pay Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Equality, diversity and inclusion Whistleblowing Coronavirus ( COVID-19) Issues arising on termination Employment tribunals Corporate governance Immigration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content IRLR Highlights— September 2024 Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Pay Think tank High Pay Centre released analysis of FTSE 100 executive pay for 2023. While CEO pay growth has eased after the post-pandemic surge, the median package hit a new record, up from £4.1m in 2022 to £4.19m in 2023. See: LNB News 12/08/2024 34. Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) ET permitted to reject dismissal complaints despite the employer’s previous omission to make reasonable adjustments. In Parnell v Royal Mail Group [2024] EAT 130, the claimant brought about 31 employment tribunal claims, divided into two...
Adjournment needed for medical expert to assess capacity of witness to give evidence ((1) Easton & Co (2) Justin Easton (on behalf of the estate of Leslie Easton deceased) v Donlon) (1) Leslie Easton & Co Ltd (2) Justin Easton (on behalf of the estate of Leslie Easton deceased) v Donlon [2024] EAT 126 What are the practical implications of this decision? Here, the respondents’ advocate faced a dire predicament when his client suddenly repudiated the document intended to be his evidence-in-chief. The client: disputed that he authored the letter in the bundle designated as his evidence-in-chief rejected having previously agreed with his representative (and the other director) that this letter would serve as his evidence-in-chief claimed he had never read it before taking the oath insisted the contents were untrue and that anyone asserting otherwise was...
Herve v (1) Goldstein (2) Sareen ( ET/2201510/2021, ET/2201511/2021, ET/2203754/2021) Employment Judge Natasha Joffe found that Abraham Goldstein and Vipin Sareen must compensate Marie Herve for unfair dismissal after she objected to being required to keep working from their homes while COVID-19 restrictions remained in force. The tribunal determined that Goldstein, formerly the head of derivatives at UBS, is to pay Herve more than £94,000 for his treatment of her, while Sareen is liable for over £20,000, as set out in the decision. In a November 2022 judgment, Judge Joffe concluded that Herve “had been pressed to attend work during an ongoing public health emergency because it would be more convenient to [ Goldstein] for her to do so”. Herve initially served as a personal assistant to Goldstein and Sareen from 2009 at the hedge fund IV Capital. When the company was wound up in 2014, they...
Under the programme, whistleblowers who voluntarily and promptly provide the Criminal Division with original and truthful information about corporate misconduct that leads to a criminal or civil forfeiture exceeding US$1m are now able to qualify for a monetary award. The award can be up to 30% of the first US$100m in net proceeds forfeited, and up to 5% of any net proceeds forfeited between US$100m and US$500m. Any award is subject to defined eligibility requirements, outlined below, and requires, among other things, the whistleblower’s co-operation. The initiative complements another pilot programme introduced earlier this year that offers non-prosecution agreements to qualifying individuals who voluntarily disclose information about the same types of offences. Together, the programmes reflect the DOJ’s continuing efforts to incentivise individual reporting, and thereby encourage companies to implement effective compliance programmes and make their own disclosures of potential...
In this issue: Equality, diversity and inclusion Maternity, parents and carers Trade unions and industrial action TUPE Bribery, modern slavery, tax evasion and fraud Unfair dismissal Settlement Employment Tribunals Immigration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Equality, diversity and inclusion Temp government worker loses discrimination claim over gender critical views Law360 reports that, in Mc Bride v The Scottish Ministers ( ETS/4102841/2023), a temporary worker failed in his case alleging the Scottish Government discriminated against him for holding the belief that sex is immutable, after the tribunal decided he had intentionally provoked colleagues likely to disagree. See Law360: Temp government worker loses discrimination claim over gender critical views. EHRC reports Mo D’s apology to former soldier for...
Guidance on the UK’s new failure to prevent fraud offence Guidance on the UK’s new failure to prevent fraud offence is expected within the next three months, raising the prospect that the offence could take effect by April next year, according to MLex. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, approved by UK legislators last October, contains a clause requiring large businesses to establish ‘reasonable procedures’ to shield themselves from prosecution for failing to prevent fraud. The approach reflects the UK’s Bribery Act 2010, under which corporates may face prosecution for failing to prevent bribery. This closely mirrors the existing legal framework......
Salary increases On 4 April 2024, all three key salary benchmarks rose for standard, new Skilled Worker applications. To sponsor an individual on this route, employers must now pay whichever is highest of the following: the general minimum salary threshold, lifted from £26,200 to £38,700 gross a year the hourly floor, increased from £10.75 to £15.88 per hour the going rate, which shifted from the 25th percentile in the occupation code under the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings ( ASHE) to the 50th percentile (the median) Because of that final adjustment, certain minimum rates jumped by 50 per cent or more, with many new figures exceeding both the threshold salary and prevailing market pay, especially for roles outside major cities where remuneration is often lower. Note too that the going rate is typically calculated on a 37.5-hour working week; where...
N Notaro Homes Ltd v Keirle and others [2024] EAT 122 Employment Appeal Tribunal Judge Simon Auerbach upheld the decision of the tribunal below, confirming it was correct not to cut the monetary awards due to ex-employees of the care home operator N Notaro Homes Ltd. He agreed the tribunal had properly determined that this was an uncommon matter in which a reduction would not be just and equitable. Judge Auerbach described it as the kind of exceptional situation where, for every claimant, the tribunal could properly find that their compensatory sums should remain untouched, as lowering them would not meet the just and equitable standard, and therefore the original compensation should stand. Without reduction......
Mc Bride v Scottish Ministers ( ETS/4102841/2023) Although Kenny Mc Bride reported feeling acutely upset by remarks at LGBTQ+ events and staff forums that prioritised the lived experience of transgender people over biological sex, Employment Judge David Hoey, in a 136-page decision, concluded that Mc Bride entered these discussions anticipating the response. The tribunal recorded that he intentionally engaged with people he expected to oppose him and sought to draw out their beliefs to show that the respondent did not share his position, Judge Hoey wrote for the tribunal. However, the panel determined there was no connection at all between Mc Bride’s belief that sex is binary and how he was treated. Mc Bride was employed on a temporary basis by Pertemps Recruitment Ltd and, in June 2022, was assigned to Transport Scotland, the Scottish government’s transport agency......
In this issue: Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) ESG and sustainability: employment issues Status and worker categories Employment contract Pay Whistleblowing Employment Tribunals/ Employment Appeal Tribunal Civil courts Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Materials Lex Talk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Complaint by LGBT charity about ‘gender critical’ tweets did not induce or cause chambers’ discrimination of barrister In Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd [2024] EAT 119, the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed an employment tribunal had not erred in dismissing a barrister’s complaint, based on her gender critical beliefs, that Stonewall, an LGBT campaigning charity, had caused or encouraged her chambers to discriminate against her, contrary to section 111 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal...
At an Employment Tribunal in Wales, Judge Samantha Moore told the Royal Mint Ltd that, while its wish to avoid unsettling its senior leadership cohort was a legitimate aim, this was not a proportionate response when weighed against the discriminatory impact of refusing to let HR director Sarah Bradley retract her resignation. The organisation reached its conclusion without appreciating the extent to which Bradley’s mental health influenced her decision to step down, according to a 16 July decision released on 25 July 2024. Judge Moore added that the Royal Mint’s reasons for acting as it did were irrelevant, finding a sufficient connection between the HR director’s disability and her resignation. The tribunal said it was unable to fathom why the employer did not pause to obtain proper, informed medical advice about the disabilities, their effect on the claimant’s behaviour and her...
Principles on extending time for EAT appeals scrutinised by the Court of Appeal ( Ridley v HB Kirtley t/a Queen's Court Business Centre & Others) Ridley v HB Kirtley (trading as Queen's Court Business Centre); Kostrova v Mc Dermott International Inc and another; Taylor v Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] EWCA Civ 884 What are the practical implications of this judgment? Considering three conjoined appeals where appellants lodged an appeal to the EAT in time but omitted a required document, the Court of Appeal held that the discretion to extend time under EAT Rule 37(1) requires recognition of a material and legally significant difference between situations: an appellant who files a Notice of Appeal and almost all documents required by EAT Rule 3(1) within the limit, and an appellant who files nothing until after the limit has expired. That distinction governs how the EAT should...
Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd [2024] EAT 119 What are the practical implications of this judgment? The debate over gender‑critical beliefs, gender‑neutral approaches and trans rights remains intensely politicised and highly emotive, attracting substantial press attention and widespread social media coverage, and frequently prompting forceful commentary and scrutiny. This EAT judgment sets out HHJ Bourne’s interpretation of Eq A 2010, s 111—the statutory prohibition on instructing, causing or inducing contraventions in relation to Eq A 2010—and frames the questions a tribunal must address on causation and liability. According to the EAT: section 111 does not require any test of reasonable foreseeability once ‘but for’ causation is established, the issue is whether it is fair, reasonable or just to hold person A liable for person B’s contravention of the Eq A 2010 On the facts found, the EAT agreed that the employment tribunal had not erred in dismissing the...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
