header-logo header-logo

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

European Union

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

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

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
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
back-to-top-scroll