header-logo header-logo

European Union

28 September 2017
Issue: 7763 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Nogueira and others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd; Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company [2017] All ER (D) 101 (Sep)

Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 had to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of proceedings being brought by a member of the air crew, in order to establish the jurisdiction of the court seised, the concept of ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of that provision, could not be equated with that of ‘home base’, within the meaning of Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) 3922/91. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that it was a significant indicium.

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

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Employment boutique strengthens litigation bench with partner hire

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Partner appointed to dispute resolution team

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Employment law offering in Guernsey expands with new hire

NEWS
Law students and graduates can now apply to qualify as solicitors and barristers with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll