Welcome to the Info Hub.

It is too early to say what impacts there will be on private clients but the setting of tax policy has always remained with national governments (other than VAT), and even on the harmonisation of European succession law England and Wales have retained independence so changes may not be as extensive as for companies.

 The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on the 12 February last year.  It represented a major change to the Marine Insurance Act which served very well for over 100 years.  The Marine Insurance...

The son of a pensioner whose money was ‘stolen by a greedy friend’ has met with a government minister in his bid to get power of attorney laws changed.

Back in 2011, amendments were made to the statutory payment notice and withholding notice regimes, first introduced by the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

In R (on the Application of Hottak and Another) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that employees who work abroad and wished to bring claims under the Equality Act in the UK must satisfy the same territorial jurisdiction test as that established in the House of Lords (as it then was) in Lawson v Serco Limited in relation to unfair dismissal claims under the Employment Rights Act. In doing so, the Court dismissed an appeal against the Divisional Court’s decision that Afghan nationals who were employed by the British Government to work as interpreters for British military forces in Afghanistan could not bring Equality Act claims.

In Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest, the EAT has held that there only needs to be a loose causal link between an employee’s conduct and their disability, for a disability discrimination claim arising from disability to be made out.

In Gibbs v Leeds United Football Club, the High Court has held that an employee’s willingness to negotiate a termination package does not necessarily prevent him being able to bring a claim of constructive unfair dismissal.

In Harron v Dorset Police, the EAT has potentially extended still further the meaning of “philosophical belief” under the Equality Act.  It is possible that a belief that a public service is improperly wasteful of money may be protected under the meaning of philosophical belief.

In another somewhat unusual case factually, Pendleton v Derbyshire County Council, the EAT dealt with an appeal by a claimant against the dismissal of her claim for indirect religious discrimination on the ground that she had been sacked because she refused to leave her husband who was convicted of making indecent images of children and voyeurism.

The pupil was a boarder at the School; she suffered from ADHD. She was caught having sexual intercourse with a male student in the school which resulted in her exclusion and the Principal advising her mother to withdraw her to avoid her having an expulsion on her record. Her mother appealed against the decision, stating that she was disabled under the Equality Act because of her ADHD and its negative effect on her ability to make decisions, and that she had thereby been discriminated against. The matter was initially heard in the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland which rejected the claim as it was not satisfied that she suffered from a disability. The Court of Session agreed and rejected her appeal because it considered that her mental impairment did not have a substantial and long term adverse effect on her ability to carry out day to day activities based on the evidence of her teachers. Furthermore there did not appear to be a causal link between the ADHD and the act in question which caused her expulsion; this was based on the pre-planning involved in the act itself rather than being an impulsive one as a result of the ADHD; plus evidence that she had had previous sexual relationships which her mother did not appear to attribute to the condition.

In Carreras v United First Partners Research, the EAT has upheld an appeal by a claimant against a Tribunal decision that his reasonable adjustments claim failed because he had not claimed the appropriate provision, criterion or practice which triggered the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The Advocate General has given his opinion in the case of Achbita and Another v G4S Secure Solutions NV on a question that was referred to the European Court of Justice for an opinion on whether prohibiting female Muslim employees from wearing headscarves at work constituted direct discrimination contrary to the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.