header-logo header-logo

25 September 2008
Issue: 7338 / Categories: Case law , Tribunals , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law

GFI Holdings Ltd v Camm [2008] All ER (D) 74 (Sep)

An employment tribunal has a broad discretion to stay proceedings before it under r 10(2)(h) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1861), particularly where there are parallel High Court proceedings arising out of similar facts. It is generally desirable to dispose of High Court actions first where there are issues in both sets of proceedings which are substantially the same.

The factors to be taken into account when determining whether or not a stay is appropriate include the degree of similarity of issues between the two sets of proceedings, the complexity of those issues, the technicality of the evidence, the amount of damages claimed, the need for an orderly disposal of proceedings, and the delay that would be occasioned by postponing the tribunal proceedings.

Issue: 7338 / Categories: Case law , Tribunals , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll