In the first of two articles, Suzanne Chalmers and Jack Macaulay explore the current law relating to claimants’ illegality and dishonesty ‘The essential rationale of the doctrine of illegality was that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the …
Continue reading "Conduct: Hoisted by their own petard?"
This post is only available to members.
James Goudkamp explores whether the Supreme Court’s policy-based approach to the illegality doctrine will be followed in tort cases ‘An important question that arises, and one that was not answered by the Supreme Court, is whether Patel applies beyond the field of unjust enrichment.’ The Supreme Court recently handed down judgment in the appeal in …
Continue reading "Illegality: Does Patel v Mirza apply in tort?"
This post is only available to members.
Gareth Keillor and Rosanna Pinker consider the lack of clarification from the Supreme Court on the illegality defence ‘The mere existence of illegal activity will not be enough to defeat a claim; there must be a sufficiently close connection between that unlawful activity and the claimant’s pleaded case.’ The application of the illegality defence, otherwise …
Continue reading "Illegality And Trusts: Public policy or rule of law?"
This post is only available to members.
Richard Kenyon and Catherine Meredith analyse the impact of new legislation and recent developments in employment case law on preventing forced labour ‘Employment law has already led the way in providing potential remedies to victims of trafficking – though not without significant obstacles.’ On 25 March 1807, the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act entered …
Continue reading "Modern Slavery: More action needed?"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2014 #145The claimant Arthur Watts (Arthur) sued his brother James Watts (James) in respect of trust transactions in 1998.
In 1967 Geoffrey Watts, the father of Arthur and James, made a settlement in favour of his children and grandchildren. In 1976 this trust fund was split into separate trust funds for each of Geoffrey’s children. James was one of the trustees of Arthur’s trust fund. The main beneficiaries were Arthur in his lifetime and thereafter his legitimate children. Clause 4 allowed the trustees to pay all the capital to Arthur if they considered it to be to his advantage...
An employee who did not have a work permit will not be barred from bringing a claim under the Equality Act, reports Kate Barker ‘The tribunal noted that, as in Vakante, this [Wijesundera] was a situation where the employment situation was unlawful “from top to bottom and from beginning to end”.’ In Wijesundera v Heathrow …
Continue reading "Discrimination: Illegal contracts and harassment claims"
This post is only available to members.
Sarah Parkin rounds up the key legal developments and cases that employment law practitioners need to be aware of next year ‘A particular issue likely to be of concern to employers is whether they will face discrimination claims if they pay enhanced maternity pay where someone is on maternity leave but do not pay the …
Continue reading "The Year Ahead: Fourteen predictions for 2014"
This post is only available to members.
