header-logo header-logo

16 October 2015
Issue: 7672 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Pension

O’Brien v Ministry of Justice; Walker v Innospec and others [2015] EWCA Civ 1000, [2015] All ER (D) 46 (Oct)

The Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals against decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, holding, in respect of the first appeal, among other things, that, at the time of the first appellant’s service as a part-time recorder before the date for the transposition of Council Directive (EC) 97/81 into domestic law, he had acquired no pension rights and could not do so retroactively. As to the second appeal, it held, among other things, that para 18 of Sch 9 to the Equality Act 2010 was not incompatible with Council Directive (EC) 2000/78.

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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
Jonathan Fisher KC’s wide-ranging fraud report contains worthwhile proposals, but turning them into workable reform will require money, capacity and political will
A Court of Appeal ruling shows that a failed nuisance claim may still leave a neighbour liable in negligence where foreseeable harm could readily have been avoided
The government has stepped back from a proposed early-release exclusion limited to unlawful act manslaughter, opting instead to exclude all manslaughter sentences
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience
back-to-top-scroll