header-logo header-logo

15 May 2015
Issue: 7652 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 439, [2015] All ER (D) 20 (May)

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant company’s appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowing the claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of her claim for age discrimination. Consideration was given to the legal basis on which a remedy should be available in circumstances where an act which was detrimental to a claimant was done by an employee who was innocent of any discriminatory motivation but who had been influenced by information supplied, or views expressed by another employee whose motivation was, or was said to have been, discriminatory.

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
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll