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

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