Monday, June 18, 2018
Employment Law Case
Employment Law Case

Employment Law Case

In February this year, for the first time in my adult life, a serving senior Judge commented on the appointment of another. The serving Judge was Lord Justice Sedley of the Court of Appeal and Privy Council. His target was Lord Sumption, newly appointed to the Supreme Court (and therefore, suddenly, Sedley's senior) after a lengthy career at the bar and some judicial service, as a part-time Judge on the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey. Now there have been barristers appointed directly to the Supreme Court before without full-time judicial service. But no English barrister has been promoted in this way for six decades. There used to be a tradition in the judiciary up until the middle decades of the last century of appointment to the High Court on the basis of political service (generally in the Conservative Party), but this belonged to the days when the High Court was seen as a relatively "easy" appointment, and the tradition has (thankfully) lapsed. In 1979, Sumption co-authored with the Conservative philosopher Sir Keith Joseph a book attacking the principle of equality. He followed his promotion in 2011 with a public lecture ('Judicial and Political Decision-Making: The Uncertain Boundary') criticising the previous senior judiciary for their supposed intervention in areas best left to Parliament. "English public law has not developed a coherent or principled basis", Sumption told his listeners "for distinguishing between those questions which are properly a matter for decision by politicians answerable to Parliament and the electorate, and…
Thursday, 25 October 2012 20:53

Deposit at PHR

Written by Philip Hyland
The case of Spring v First Capital East reported at the EAT today is an interesting case where the Claimant was order to pay a £250.00 deposit as a condition of being permitted to continue to bring his claim that he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on grounds of age at the PHR in February 2011. The Claimant applied for a review of the decision which was rejected two months later and the Claimant appealed to EAT. The Claimant, advanced four grounds of appeal: that the Judge erred in concluding that he could not hear evidence on a PHR; that the Judge erred in concluding that he could not review his decision to order the Claimant to pay a deposit; given the facts of the case it was inappropriate to assess the prospects of success at a preliminary stage the procedure adopted at the PHR was unfair The appeal failed on all four grounds. It is quite rare for the Claimant to go to such extreme lengths to avoid payment of a deposit. The Respondent was represented by Counsel and the costs for the Respondent in just attending the EAT hearing must have exceeded the deposit ordered. If the Claimant had confidence in his case it would have been heard a lot sooner if he had just put his money where his mouth was. It is our experience that when a deposit is ordered in about 80% of the cases the Claimant will not pay. Perhaps this case is…
Tuesday, 16 October 2012 15:11

Service Provision Change

Written by Philip Hyland
Important case involving what amounts to a service provision change is reported today -SNR Denton v Kirwan. The case involves the legal director of Jarvis. Prior to going into administration the legal director of Jarvis spent a great deal of time disposing of contracts to realise funds to satisfy the bank. When Jarvis went into administration the administrators appointed Solicitors to dispose of assets, principally contracts, to help pay off creditors. Were the activities carried out by the administrators's Solicitors carried out for the purpose of the administration? The EAT answered yes they were and as the purpose differed that was enough not to make it a SPC.
Page 3 of 8

Blog - Search

Blog - Recent Comments