With the tennis, the world cup, President Trump’s visit, the heatwave and the endless Brexit drama, it may have escaped you that on 9 June 2018 the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc) Regulations 2018 came into force.
The background to this case will be well-known to many practitioners so this post will not repeat it. Instead, it focuses on two criticisms made by the Supreme Court about the way in which Mrs Owens’ petition was case managed which, it is suggested, will have unfortunate consequences for those of us working in this field.
In dismissing A’s appeal, the court illustrated the need to carefully cross-examine a witness and make detailed submissions, as opposed to raising issues on appeal. It also demonstrates the need to invite the trial judge to clarify/amplify his reasons.
Mark Ruffell looks at sentencing for perverting the course of justice.
The case of Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council  UKSC 16 is – understandably – drawing a large amount of commentary,
Did the EAT err in law in finding that a member of an LLP who acts “reasonably” in withdrawing his labour will not, as a matter of law, act wrongfully or in repudiatory breach of the LLP members’ agreement, and accordingly may be awarded losses flowing from a subsequent expulsion pursuant to the
In the recent decision in Okedina v Chikale UKEAT/0152/17/RN the EAT (HHJ Eady QC) considered the question of when a Claimant’s contract of employment would be said to be illegal by virtue of the operation of immig
Ezra Macdonald provides a brief round-up of reported TUPE cases from 2017.
When considering whether a dismissal is an automatically unfair “whistleblowing” dismissal, is it permissible to consider the mental processes of anyone other than the decision-taker? In particular, what if the decision-taker was “manipulated” by another of the Respondent’s employees?
When is an employer liable for the criminal actions of a rogue employee in disclosing personal information of co-employees on the web?