Every business will have some form of Intellectual Property (IP), from larger corporate companies down to local family run businesses. It’s the product or services that you have developed that sets you apart from your competitors. We know that, as a business, there are numerous issues you will face involving the development of the product, hiring employees, raising the capital and so much more. However, many of our clients often overlook the importance of IP protection throughout the life of their business, especially at the start.
In the case of Hargreaves v Manchester Grammar, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that the failure of the employer to disclose evidence in favour of the employee to a disciplinary panel did not render the dismissal unfair.
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a teacher and had an unblemished career, until it was alleged that during an incident where a number of pupils were pushing each other, the Claimant grabbed a pupil, shoved him against the wall and then pushed two forefingers against his throat.
If your brand name or logo is important to you, consider trademark protection.
When starting up a new business, there are so many things to think about, from deciding your legal entity to who provides the office stationary. The mammoth task of decision making required at this stage can be overwhelming and vital considerations can often slip under the radar.
In the case of British Airways plc v Pinaud, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) held that a worker who was required to work 53.5% of full-time hours but was only paid 50% of full-time pay had been treated less favourably.
The Claimant, Ms Pinaud, was employed by British Airways as a cabin crew purser. She worked part-time whereby she was on duty for 130 days per year, whereas full-time workers had to work 243 days per year. Accordingly, the Claimant had to be available for 53.5% of a full-time worker’s hours, however she was only paid 50% of a full-time worker’s salary.
In the case of Addison Lee Ltd v Lange & Ors, another recent ‘gig-economy’ case brought against the taxi and courier firm Addison Lee, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that private hire drivers were workers and not independent contractors.
The three Claimants were private hire drivers for Addison Lee. They brought claims against the company asserting that they were workers and were therefore entitled to receive holiday pay and the national minimum wage.
In the case of Wood v Durham County Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a tendency to steal, which the employee claimed to be a manifestation of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and associative amnesia, was not an impairment and therefore does not meet the definition of disability for the purpose of bringing a disability discrimination claim.
In the case of George v London Borough of Brent, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has commented that a redundancy dismissal is likely to be unfair where an employer fails to comply with a contractual obligation to offer a trial period for an alternative role.
The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent as a Library Manager. She was informed that her role was being made redundant and was offered a job as a Customer Service Officer (CSO) which was at a lower grade, however her rate of pay would be maintained for a period of 12 months.
We are delighted to see that Berry Smith features prominently in recently published independent guides to the legal profession in the UK.
In both the prestigious Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners guides Berry Smith is recognised as a leading law firm in Wales, and is recommended in a record number of 13 areas of practice.