header-logo header-logo

09 November 2012
Issue: 7537 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

Abercrombie & others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd UKEAT/0099/12/SM, [2012] All ER (D) 334 (Oct)

The wording of s 28(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not preclude an agreed temporary variation constituting a change to an employee’s normal working hours so as to prevent the award of a guarantee payment merely because the variation was temporary. The focus had to be on the periods when the employees were “normally” required to work, and not when they were “permanently” required to work. That entailed asking what were the normal requirements and the wording showed that the mere fact that an arrangement was not permanent was not conclusive.

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

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
back-to-top-scroll