-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers garden leave.
-
- Date:
- 27 June 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Enfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne; BF Components Ltd v Grace [2008] EWCA Civ 393, the Court of Appeal held that a genuine error in the categorisation of employment status will not be enough to establish illegality where there has been no express or implied misrepresentation of the facts of the working arrangements.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers varying contracts of employment.
-
- Date:
- 27 February 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
-
- Date:
- 29 January 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Regent Security Services Ltd v Power [2007] EWCA Civ 1188 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee transferred under the 1981 TUPE Regulations could choose to enforce new, more beneficial terms agreed with the transferee, even where the variation was connected with the transfer.
-
- Date:
- 11 January 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1065, the Court of Appeal ruled that the provision in the TUPE Regulations to the effect that a transferred contract of employment will have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee could not be construed so as to give the employee a contractual benefit to which she had not been entitled under her original contract.
-
- Date:
- 23 November 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The High Court has held that an employee's resignation two days after he had been informed that he was being transferred was a valid objection to the transfer.
-
- Date:
- 16 October 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Enfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne; Grace v BF Components Ltd EAT/0644/06, the EAT holds that the contracts of employment were not tainted by illegality because, although the parties had wrongly characterised them as contracts of self-employment, in neither case had the parties misrepresented to the authorities the facts of their relationship.