Search Results

racial groups. The main case where this issue arose was Mandla v Dowell Lee (1983) in the House of Lords. In that case, Lord Fraser set out the essential characteristics of ‘ethnic

of the essential terms of the contract ( Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp (1978)). MacCardie J put it as follows in Re Rubel Bronze & Metal Co. Ltd (1918): In every case the question

a foreman made his case materially different. The employer won the case. Questions 1 Why should the fact that Mr Proctor was a foreman make his case ‘materially different’

against each point and any discrepancies in the evidence. When preparing the case, it is essential to think about the strengths and weaknesses of the points that both sides will be

wrongful dismissal cases in preference to unfair dismissal cases; ● advise on the different remedies that can be ordered when a claimant wins a wrongful dismissal case; ● outline the

special dangers faced in his case. Goggles should have been provided for him. This case is important because it places a higher duty of care on employers in the case of employees with relevant

in discrimination cases and state when each is awarded; ● assess the merits of the cases put forward by the two sides in the debate about justification in cases of direct sex dis

unless they wish it to be. After the case of P v S , the European Court of Human Rights decided the case of Godwin v UK , a non-employment case, which led to the Gender Reassignment

direct discrimination, proving detriment and less favourable treatment on a case-by-case basis. The original case on this was Porcelli v Strathclyde Regional Council (1986), where the

to be the ending of employment in certain untypical cases without there being in law a dismissal, (2) establishing the essential law on dismissal by the giving of notice (the usual

deciding a point on constructive dismissal), Slade LJ said: [I]n cases such as the present where it is essential to imply some term into the contract of employment as to place of work

and giving them reasonable time in which to do so. Of course, warnings are not essential in every case, and may perhaps be irrelevant where it is clear that the employee is completely

this is just such a case. In a subsequent Court of Appeal case, Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co , 42 however, a different approach was taken. In that case a branch manager who

of the most significant cases: Redmond (Dr Sophie) Stichting v Bartol (Case C-29/91) [1992] IRLR 366; Rask and Christiensen v ISS Kantineservice A/S (Case C-209/91) [1993] IRLR 133;

protections were weak. Although it was not a case which was reported in the law reports or which came before a court, the details of this case circulated widely throughout Europe in 1973–74

appealed cases up through the court system. What makes it interesting, but also somewhat unpredictable, is that the common law continues to evolve all the time. Steadily, as cases come

the case, the EAT must not remit the case back to the employment tribunal for further amplification or clarification. The proper course is to allow the appeal and remit the case back

operation of essential public services and mortuaries, burial and cremation services. 321 On industrial action in the essential services generally, see Morris Strikes in Essential Services

the case, the EAT must not remit the case back to the employment tribunal for further amplification or clarification. The proper course is to allow the appeal and remit the case back

more realistic line was taken later. The leading case is Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd (1989). In this case, the employees were dismissed just one hour before