header-logo header-logo

10 August 2012
Issue: 7526 / Categories: Case law , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment

Bridgeman v Associated British Ports UKEAT/0425/11/JOJ, [2012] All ER (D) 18 (Aug)

It was necessary for the employment tribunal to ask, in the context of applying reg 24 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) whether there were objective reasons why the working arrangements could not be arranged so as to secure a full break.

Therefore, objective reasons were required to justify a failure to provide the employee with his full rest break. That applied equally to rest periods under reg 10 so that objective reasons for not giving rest periods under reg 10 and rest breaks under reg 12 had to be separately considered. That would be in accordance with what was the correct interpretation of Art 17 of Council Directive (EC) 2003/88.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll