header-logo header-logo

01 January 2009
Issue: 7350+7351 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Law digest: Employment law

Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1446, [2008] All ER (D) 191 (Dec)

Judicial tribunals have an obligation to give reasons which are “candid, intelligible, transparent and coherent”. Transparency means that properly drawn reasons should make it possible for the reader to find sources, especially but not only sources of law, which are referred to but not recited. While there is no universal test of procedural irregularity, a tribunal’s determination is not vitiated by reference to uncanvassed authorities if these have not been central to and influential in the eventual decision.

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

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