-
expand
Rowe v London Underground Ltd EAT/0125/16
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Rowson v Contessa (Ladieswear) Ltd [1994] IT/06899/94
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey [2014] IRLR 368 CA
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 11 October 2014
In Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey [2014] IRLR 368 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the apparent exclusion of post-employment victimisation from the Equality Act 2010 was the result of an inadvertent drafting error and that such conduct is indeed proscribed by the Act.
-
- Date:
- 28 February 2014
The Court of Appeal has held that the Equality Act 2010 can be interpreted to cover post-employment victimisation, resolving the conflict created by two contradictory EAT decisions on this issue.
-
expand
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Harrison [2009] IRLR 28 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 3 November 2008
In Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Harrison EAT/0093/08, the EAT held that a disruption to the employee's childcare arrangements was unexpected. She was, therefore, entitled to take time off for dependants, and had suffered a detriment for a prescribed reason for doing so.
-
expand
Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Theobald EAT/0444/06
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton EAT/0542/09 & EAT/0306/10
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust v Watkinson EAT/0378/10
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union [2009] IRLR 1046 CA
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 13 January 2010
In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union [2009] EWCA Civ 1045 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employer must inform representatives of employees who may be affected by a TUPE transfer of its considered and genuine view as to the legal implications of the proposed transfer. However, reg.13(2)(b) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 does not impose strict liability on the employer as to the accuracy of that information. Therefore the employer will not be in breach if the information that it gives reflects a genuine but mistaken belief as to the legal implications.
-
expand
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2016] IRLR 854 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2020] IRLR 129 SC
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 28 November 2019
In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti, the Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal for making protected disclosures is hidden behind an invented reason that is adopted by the decision-maker, the reason for the dismissal is the hidden reason rather than the invented one.