-
expand
Hooper v British Railways Board [1988] IRLR 517 CA
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 December 1988
In Hooper v British Railways Board [1988] IRLR 517 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the terms of a negotiated agreement, which provided that a member of staff who was declared fit by his own doctor but did not meet the medical standards required by the Board's doctor "shall be paid the basic rate of pay appropriate to his grade until such time as he resumes work either in his own post or on other suitable work", meant that the employee had a contractual right to be kept on full pay until such time as he was redeployed or reached retirement age.
-
expand
Hope v British Medical Association EAT/000187/21
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Hopkins v Kosher Deli UK Ltd ET/3302741/09
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Horizon Security Services Ltd v Ndeze and another [2014] IRLR 854 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 September 2014
Gerri Hurst, Sinead Keenan, Carly Mather, Joelle Parkinson and Mark Rose are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
-
expand
Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International [2004] IRLR 942 CA
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 December 2004
In Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International [2004] IRLR 942 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, even where the employment contract states that payment of a bonus is discretionary, the employer is under an implied duty to exercise that discretion genuinely and rationally, and a wrongfully dismissed employee could recover damages that reflect the bonus payments that he could have expected to receive had he remained in employment.
-
expand
Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB [2012] IRLR 785 ECJ
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Horton v First Devon & Cornwall Ltd ET/1702672/09
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1604
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 31 December 2002
In Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1604 CA, the Court of Appeal held that it is clear from the wording of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, regulation 5 that when an employer supplies work equipment it must be suitable in any respect that it is reasonably foreseeable will affect the health or safety of any person. In this case the unlawful actions of the claimant's work colleague were not foreseeable.
-
expand
Horwood v Lincolnshire County Council EAT/0462/11 & EAT/0463/11
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood [2012] IRLR 834 CA
(1 report relating to this case)