Case round up

This report relates to 5 case(s)

• expand

  Astley and others v Celtec Ltd [2002] IRLR 629 CA (2 other reports)

  • Transfer of undertakings: Six-year transfer period meant secondees had transfer rights

    Date:

    11 November 2002

    In Astley and others v Celtec Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that the EC Business Transfers Directive is sufficiently widely worded to allow for a transfer of an undertaking to take place over a period of time.

  • On appeal: TUPE, Working Time Regulations and the Convention on Human Rights

    Date:

    3 September 2002

    Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Sue Nickson, partner and national head of employment law at Hammonds Suddards Edge, looks at the issues

• expand

  Cantor Fitzgerald International v Bird [2002] IRLR 867 HC (3 other reports)

  • Keeping secrets and not competing

    Date:

    18 November 2005

    A round-up of developments in the implied duty of confidentiality and express contractual terms on confidential information and restraints on competition.

  • Contracts of employment: Employer's aggressive tactics repudiated contracts

    Date:

    7 March 2003

    An employer was in repudiatory breach of the implied trust and confidence term when its senior executives pressurised two City brokers to accept a variation to their contractual terms, which would have resulted in them being paid on a commission-only basis and losing valuable rights to fixed annual remuneration plus bonuses, the High Court holds in Cantor Fitzgerald International v Bird and others.

  • Bad behaviour costs dear

    Date:

    1 October 2002

    The manner in which managers at City brokers Cantor Fitzgerald tried to introduce new financial terms for two of its brokers ultimately invalidated vital restrictive covenants in their contracts. Chris Southam urges firms to learn the lesson that macho management can have unforeseen consequences.

• expand disabled

  Carruth v Macfarlane Packaging Ltd EAT/85/02 (0 other reports)
• expand disabled

  Pratley v Surrey County Council [2002] EWHC 1608 HC (0 other reports)
• expand

  Rutherford v Towncircle Ltd (t/a Harvest) (in liquidation) and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (No.2); Bentley v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2002] IRLR 768 ET (8 other reports)

  • Unfair dismissal/ redundancy: Upper age limits for unfair dismissal and redundancy ruled unlawful

    Date:

    7 March 2003

    In Rutherford v Towncircle Ltd (t/a Harvest) (in liquidation) and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Bentley v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, an employment tribunal holds that the exclusion of employees aged over 65 from the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal compensation, or from entitlement to a redundancy payment upon dismissal, is contrary to European law.

  • Tribunal strikes down age limit

    Date:

    1 November 2002

    In Rutherford v Towncircle Ltd and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (No.2) and Bentley v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (22 August 2002), an employment tribunal has ruled that the statutory upper age limit of 65 on the right to claim unfair dismissal and the right to a redundancy payment is indirectly discriminatory against men and contrary to EU law.

  • Older and wiser and not ready for the scrapheap

    Date:

    8 October 2002

    A recent employment tribunal decision could herald the end of the traditional retirement age as we know it.

  • Government appeals age bias ruling

    Date:

    1 October 2002

    The Employers Forum on Age (EFA) is unhappy that the Government is to appeal against a landmark employment tribunal ruling on older workers.

  • Landmark ruling for over-65s

    Date:

    1 October 2002

    In a landmark hearing, an employment tribunal has ruled that men aged over 65 can pursue claims for redundancy and unfair dismissal.

  • Unfair dismissal claims could reach from the grave

    Date:

    1 October 2002

    A recent tribunal ruling giving over-65s the right to protection from unfair dismissal could open the floodgates to claims from those dismissed in the past - and even from relatives of dead employees.

  • New decision provides protection for over 65s

    Date:

    24 September 2002

    A recent tribunal ruling means it is highly likely there will be more claims for unfair dismissal from people over the age of 65. By Jill Kelly, an associate with Clarks Employment Team, Reading.

  • Tribunal ends age barrier to unfair dismissal and redundancy claims

    Date:

    23 September 2002

    Employees over 65 years of age have won the right to claim for unfair dismissal and redundancy payments as the result of two linked employment tribunal rulings.