The Latest from Cloisters
Cloisters’ barrister Nathaniel Caiden appeared for the successful appellant in Salmon v Castlebeck Care (Teesdale) Ltd and Ors, an important judgment from the Employment Appeal Tribunal about the effect of a successful appeal on an employee’s contract of employment.
Cloisters Head of Chambers, Robin Allen QC and barrister Rachel Crasnow QC, spoke at the high profile TUC and Equal Opportunities Review Discrimination Law Conference 2015 on 23 Jan 2015 at TUC headquarters, Great Russell Street, London.
Following the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Bear Scotland, the Government announced that it would set up a task force to mitigate the impact of the decision on businesses. This has culminated in The Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014
Ground Close Combat (GCC) roles are ‘those roles that are primarily intended and designed with the purpose of requiring individuals on the ground, to close with and kill the enemy’.
The EAT has today handed down judgment in the case of Chandhok v Tirkey.
This the first case in the EAT to consider caste-based discrimination. A link to the judgment can be found here. and a link to our previous post summarising the arguments in the appeal can be found here.
Can Employers now breath a sigh of relief following the 18 December judgment in the CJEU case of C‑354/13 Kaltoft v Municipality of Billund that obesity itself is not a protected characteristic?
Cloisters barrister Jason Galbraith-Marten QC joins the panel of eminent speakers at the seminar commissioned by the European Union’s Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – Progress (2007-2013) in Germany on 23 February 2015 at the ERA Conference Centre, Metzer Allee 4, Trier.
The seminar will provide participants with an overview of the EU gender equality legislation as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU in its large case on this topic.
Caspar Glyn QC, Cloisters' barrister, comments to BBC World at One and the BBC on proposed new criminal offences in relation to exploited migrant workers.
For BBC coverage on this go to: BBC news
If you are an advisor who only occasionally dabbles with tax issues in settlements for fear of having to delve into murky tax law, take note of a recent decision providing a lucid summary of the relevant principles. The case is also a cautionary tale for claimants challenging tax assessments as the claimant’s unsuccessful challenge before the First-Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) resulted in a tax bill larger than the one sent to him by HMRC. If Oti-Obhihara  IRLR 386 and Orthet v Vince Cain  ICR 374 ring a distant bell from advising on settlements past, they should now be retuned to the sound of alarm bells as the FTT in Moorthy v HMRC  UKFTT 834 (TC) has doubted their correctness.
By Daniel Dyal
In Sash Window Workshop v King theEmployment Appeal Tribunal returned to two of the central controversies in recent holiday pay case-law. Firstly the right to carry annual leave entitlement over from one leave year to the next. Secondly the right to claim back pay for untaken leave in historic leave years, particularly upon the termination of employment.
In this blog Daniel Dyal unpicks what Sash Windows decided, considers some of its implications and suggests an alternative approach to some of the reasoning.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has reserved its decision in the case of Chandhok v Tirkey concerning whether caste-based discrimination is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.
Christopher Milsom, who appeared at first instance, led Tamar Burton in the first case heard by the EAT concerning caste-based discrimination. The Equality and Human Rights Commission was granted permission to intervene.
The simple answer is no.
In a case with both sides represented by Cloisters barristers, the President of the EAT (himself the ex-Head of Chambers) held that the test is exactly the same. The fundamental basis for an unfair dismissal claim lies in section 94. There is no reason for the automatic nature of the dismissal in s103A to modify the approach to territoriality.
Smania v Standard Chartered
This EAT case concerns the territorial scope of whistle-blowing involving a Claimant a banker working in Singapore for the Respondent.
The Claimant sought to argue that UK whistle-blowing protection applied to him when he made allegations of financial misconduct. The Respondent’s registered office is based in the UK and is regulated by both UK law along and relevant Asian regulation.