header-logo header-logo

Working in the EU: the same but different?

23 May 2019 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7841 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
A claim arising in the French office of an international law firm should stay in France, as Charles Pigott explains

In Ravisy v Simmons & Simmons LLP and Taylor UKEAT/0085/18 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has endorsed an employment tribunal’s ruling that it had no jurisdiction to hear various claims under Equality Act 2010 brought by a Paris-based partner in an international legal practice.

The dispute over forced retirement

Like many UK-based international law firms Simmons & Simmons is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with members (still normally referred to as ‘partners’) working both in the UK and in a number of international offices, including Paris. The employment judge found that the Paris office was not a wholly independent business but enjoyed ‘the mixture of delegated autonomy and integrated control’ that would be expected for a ‘substantial national office’ of an international law business.

The claimant was a dual Madagascan and French national who had lived in France since the early 80s. She became

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll