scholarly journals Employment law: Employment rights‐agency workers: James v. Greenwich London Borough Council [2007] ICR 577, [2007] IRLR 168 and subsequent cases

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-349
Author(s):  
Edwina Higgins ◽  
Laura Tatham ◽  
Jackie Lane
Keyword(s):  
Employment Law ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Employment Rights

Employment Law Information Sources

2001 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 32-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ogden
Keyword(s):  
Web Site ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Professional Service ◽  
Employment Relations ◽  
Internet Site ◽  
Free Information ◽  
Employment Rights ◽  
Subscription Service

An indexed and annotated copy of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended at 1st January 2000, including amendments made by the Employment Relations Act 1999, is included on the professional area of this Web site. DiscLaw Publishing Ltd provides e-LOAD (employment Law on a Disc). The subscription service includes CD-ROMs updated every six months plus a password to their Internet site, updated every three weeks with the latest employment law developments. The site also contains lots of free information based on an earlier issue of the CD.Costs: Prices start from £5 plus VAT a day for the professional service (£190 plus VAT p.a.)Contact DiscLaw Publishing Ltd 0870 751 8905 www.emplaw.co.uk

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Whayman
Keyword(s):  
London Borough ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 AC 669, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

3. Barriers to employment rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 46-82
Author(s):  
Stephen Taylor ◽  
Astra Emir
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Private Firms ◽  
Continuous Service ◽  
Barriers To Employment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Employment Rights

UK employment law does not give equal protection to everyone considered to be working for an employer. In fact, a substantial minority of people who work for private firms, companies and public sector organisations do not enjoy the protection of employment law in some significant respects. There are four types of situation that often deny people the opportunity to bring their claims to court: when a claimant is not considered to be an employee; when a claimant is not considered to be a worker; when a claimant (who is an employee) has not completed sufficient continuous service with their employer; and when a claimant is found not to be working legally in the UK. In addition, employment tribunals operate strict limits on how soon after someone is dismissed or suffers from an instance of unlawful discrimination they make a claim if they want it to be heard. For most tribunal jurisdictions this time limit is set at three months, meaning that after this period has passed a claim cannot be considered because it is ‘out of time’. In practice this rule can also act as a fifth type of barrier preventing people from accessing their employment rights. This chapter focuses on these five types of situations.

Pubic authorities – negligence actions – control devices

Legal Studies ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Brodie
Keyword(s):  
County Council ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Common Thread ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Common ◽  
Control Devices

X (minors) v Bedfordshire County Council is by far the most important decision on the liability in negligence of public authorities since Anns v Merton London Borough Council. These two authorities, along with Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office, furnish the ground rules for such actions. The leading judgment in X v Bedfordshire CC, in which all his brethren concur, is given by Lord Browne- Wilkinson; the only other judgment being given by Lord Jauncey. The common thread running through this trilogy of cases is the emphasis on the significance of the element of discretion in the exercise of the statutory functions of a public authority: ‘Most statutes which impose a statutory duty on local authorities confer on the authority a discretion as to the extent to which, and the methods by which, such statutory duty is to be performed’.

16. Wrongful Dismissal

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astra Emir
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Employment Protection ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Employment Rights ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

Under the law which existed prior to 1971 an employer was entitled to dismiss an employee for any reason or no reason at all. In 1971 the Industrial Relations Act created the right for many employees not to be unfairly dismissed, and though that Act was repealed, the relevant provisions were substantially re-enacted in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, and further changes were made by the Employment Protection Act 1975. The Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended) contains most of the relevant statutory provisions currently in force. This chapter discusses the ways in which wrongful dismissal may occur; collateral contracts; summary dismissal; and employment law remedies.

Part VI Early Perceptions of Legal Risk, 22 Settling Differences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Legal Risk ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Significant Case ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
The Law

This chapter examines some of the other legal uncertainty issues, principally in relation to set-off and netting, that were troubling various sectors of the financial markets at around the time of the Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Re Charge Card Services Ltd cases. It first looks at a number of general, but very important, concerns that lawyers in the market had in relation to the operation of set-off and netting. Second, it considers a particular form of transaction that featured many of those (and other) concerns. Finally, it examines some of the more significant case law and legislative developments. In reviewing these issues, readers should bear in mind the huge importance that ‘certainty’ in this area of the law has now assumed.

Part VI Early Perceptions of Legal Risk, 20 A Landmark Case and its Aftermath

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Historical Explanation ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Legal Risk ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Audit Commission ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

This chapter discusses the case of Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, which had a profound effect on how the City of London perceived the dangers posed by legal risk. It involved a House of Lords decision on an ultra vires point — specifically, the power of the council in question to enter into ‘swap’ transactions. The case arose because this power was challenged by the auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. The surrounding circumstances and the unprecedented manner in which the City of London responded to the case provide both the classic case study and a historical explanation of why legal risk is seen to be so important and how seriously it is taken by those concerned with orderly financial markets.

scholarly journals ‘Unchartered’ waters: fundamental rights, Brexit and the (re)constitution of the employment law hierarchy of norms

2020 ◽  
pp. 203195252091106
Author(s):  
Niall O’Connor
Keyword(s):  
Employment Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Strong Basis ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Employment Rights ◽  
Key Terms

The decision of the British people to leave the European Union (EU) raises foundational questions for many legal fields. The effects are especially likely to be felt within domestic employment law, which now has a strong basis in EU law. Of particular concern is the removal of the nascent EU fundamental employment rights influence over domestic legislation. Employment lawyers have long relied on fundamental rights as a means of preserving the autonomy of their subject from general private law. One manifestation of this turn to fundamental rights concepts has been the ‘constitutionalisation’ of employment rights. EU law, notably the Charter of Fundamental Rights, has become a key underpinning of this constitutionalisation process. This article considers the effects of the constitutionalisation in the United Kingdom employment sphere of some of the rights found in the Charter’s Solidarity Title, through its role in the emergence of a hierarchy of sources or ‘norms’ in the employment field. In order to address the question of the Charter’s influence on the hierarchy of sources in the employment context, three interrelated processes are examined. The article begins by exploring the ‘constitutionalisation’ process, by setting out the nature of the Charter and the effects of its employment rights on the hierarchy of sources. This is followed by a consideration of the ‘deconstitutionalisation’ process brought about by Brexit, before finally examining whether a potential ‘reconstitutionalisation’ process might be underway by looking at key terms of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the potential to replicate the Charter in domestic law.

THE LIABILITY OF SCHOOLS FOR BULLYING

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294
Author(s):  
Jesse Elvin
Keyword(s):  
Health And Safety ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
County Council ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Sussex County ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

InBradford-Smart v. West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 07, Leah Bradford-Smart, a former pupil of a school maintained by West Sussex County Council, based her claim for damages for psychiatric injury and consequent loss on the school’s failure to prevent fellow pupils bullying her outside the school. It is clear that “a school is under a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of the pupils in its charge” (Van Oppen v. Clerk to Bedford Charity Trustees [1990] 1 W.L.R. 235, 250), and that it also assumes responsibility for a pupil’s educational needs (X v. Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 A.C. 633, 766, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000] 2 A.C. 619). In Bradford-Smart, the Court of Appeal held that a school is generally responsible for its pupils only when they are inside the school, but that exceptional circumstances might arise when failing to take reasonable steps to combat bullying occurring outside the school would give rise to a breach of its duty of care to a pupil.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document