header-logo header-logo

10 July 2008
Issue: 7329 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Need to know

In brief

A recent House of Lords’ judgment will make it harder for disabled employees to succeed in bringing disability-related discrimination claims, says Allen & Overy lawyer Lucy Twomey. Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] All ER (D) 342 (Jun) establishes the need for discriminators to possess knowledge of the complainant’s disability before incurring liability. Twomey says the case has overturned the test for identifying an appropriate comparator in disability-related discrimination cases which was established almost a decade ago in the Court of Appeal decision in Clark v Novacold Ltd [1999] IRLR 318.

Issue: 7329 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , 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
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
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? 
back-to-top-scroll