Two weeks ago I wrote a blog about the planning and preparation for an 8 day ICC evidential hearing in Geneva.
We are back. “So how did it go?”
Well, as far as we can tell it all went very well. Why do I say that?
Firstly, because I am confident that our planning and preparation paid off. The key to successful advocacy at any hearing is a strong case analysis, such that you have a very clear understanding of the factual and legal issues of the client’s case, and also of course the other side’s case.
The Inner House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh has attempted to plug a legal black hole which can arise where liabilities are transferred from one party to another, in this case to a statutory successor.
This decision concerns a claim following the death of Mr Bavaird due to an asbestos related condition mesothelioma. The challenge was that one of the late Mr Bavaird’s employers, East Kilbride Development Corporation, had been dissolved in 1996 and its assets and liabilities transferred to South Lanarkshire Council, one of the defenders in the case.
“Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple? Does it make any difference that the couple have entered into a civil partnership? These are questions which would have been unthinkable less than two decades ago.
This morning former Sheriff Principal James Taylor unveiled his report into the expenses and funding of civil litigation in Scotland. The report contains a set of recommendations to the Scottish Government designed to improve access to justice.
A thumbs up for ‘no win no fee’
A principal recommendation is that ‘no win no fee’ damages based agreements (DBAs) should be enforceable in Scotland. There has been a lot of criticism at the ability of claims management companies to enforce DBAs, but not solicitors, and the way that this distinction has b
It is well established that the fundamental principles of transparency and equal treatment of bidders require contracting authorities, when drafting tender documentation, to make sure that their requirements are clearly set out. What does this mean though, and how far does an authority have to go in ensuring clarity? Many of the procurement issues that we see in practice centre around the possibility of interpreting tender documents in different ways, and whether or not a contracting authority could have framed its requirements in such a way as to avoid confusion or ambiguity.
A recent decision of the English High Court has provided a reminder of the strict approach that the courts take when it comes to enforcing the time limit for challenging procurement decisions (Corelogic Limited v Bristol City Council  EWHC 2088 (TCC)).
Under an existing framework agreement, Bristol City Council carried out a ‘mini competition’ for a new adult social care management system. Corelogic was one of two bid
A reminder of the key employment law changes which take effect from today, 25 June 2013 in relation to unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
From today, an employee can bring a claim for unfair dismissal without any qualifying period of service, where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal is or relates to the employee’s political opinions or affiliation. This follows on from the decision last year in the European Court of Human Rights in which the Court said that the freedom of assembly (contained in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights) applies to a
Ah Sunday night, time to relax before Monday morning and the world of employment law kicks off again. Sitting down to watch Nigeria v Spain in the Confederation Cup it seems that employment law doesn’t take the weekend off. Just as Gus Poyet, manager of Brighton and Hove Albion and pundit on MOTD for the match, was getting ready to discuss the first half he apparently received the news from the BBC production team that his club had just issued a statement confirming his dismissal “with immediate effect”. Poyet claimed that was the first he had been notified of the de
At our last “HR Question Time” event, we asked the panel the question: “Are employers prying too far into employees’ private lives?”. With HR decision making increasingly influenced by checks on social media activities, drug and alcohol screening and CCTV use, the lines have become blurred between privacy and business interests.
There have been a couple of recent cases at the Employment Appeal Tribunal which have looked at the use of covert surveillance in the workplace. In the most recent case (City and County of Swansea –v.- Gayle), the EAT was asked