ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related checklists about Claimant

Drafting checklist for claim or response—unfair dismissal: redundancy

Drafting checklist for claim or response—unfair dismissal: redundancy Both parties • Was the Claimant an employee? See Practice Notes: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal—Eligibility and Employee status • Did the Claimant have requisite qualifying service, or does an exception apply? See Practice Note: Qualifying period for unfair dismissal • Has the Claimant complied with the requirement for early conciliation or does one of the exemptions apply? See Practice Note: The early conciliation requirement • Is the claim brought within the three-month time limit, or the period as extended if the requirement for early conciliation applies? See Practice Notes: Unfair dismissal time limit and The early conciliation requirement—Extension to time limits (the 'stop the clock' provisions) • Is the contract of employment arguably void for illegality? See Practice Note: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal—Illegality • Does the Claimant fall within a category of employee excluded from unfair dismissal protection, eg police constables. See Practice Note: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal—Particular types of employment • Was the Claimant’s work based in Great...

Ending a claim—checklist

Ending a claim—checklist How can litigation be brought to an end? There are a number of ways in which litigation can be ended. These include: Action Further guidance Admissions under CPR 14 which could effectively bring the dispute to an end Practice Note: Admissions Jurisdiction—the court may not have the jurisdiction to determine the matter, finding for example, that it should be determined by another country, by arbitration, etc Practice Note: Challenging court jurisdiction—overview, and then more detailed guidance on various aspects of this topic, including Practice Notes:Challenging court jurisdiction—general principlesChallenging court jurisdiction—has a party submitted to a jurisdiction?Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (timing and extensions of time)Challenging court jurisdiction—application under CPR 11 (general considerations)Also relevant Precedents, including: Draft order for an application to challenge English court jurisdiction, Witness statement in support of an application to challenge English court jurisdiction and Witness statement opposing an application to challenge English court jurisdiction The defendant failing to engage in the proceedings, which results in the court entering a judgment in...

View the related flowcharts about Claimant

Checklist—road traffic accident defences

Checklist—road traffic accident defences Defence Principle Further reading Contributory negligence Where the defendant is primarily responsible for the accident, they may allege the other party was guilty of contributing to the accident. The issues to consider are:—which parties were at fault in the accident?—in what proportion should the damages be apportioned having regard to the respective responsibilities of those at fault? Practice Note: Contributory negligence in personal injury claims Contributory negligence for failure to wear a seat belt As a general principle:25% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have prevented the injuries sustained15% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have made a considerable difference to the injuries sustained0% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would not have made any difference to the injuries sustained Practice Note: Defences in road traffic accidents Contributory negligence for failure to wear a motorcycle crash helmet Leading case law has suggested:15% deduction to damages—if wearing a helmet would have resulted in less severe injuries10% deduction to damages—where the claimant...

View the related practice notes about Claimant

Employment claims in Scottish civil courts

Employment claims in Scottish civil courts Scottish civil courts, like their counterparts in England and Wales, can and do decide certain employment disputes. However, there are very significant differences between the civil court systems in Scotland and in England and Wales which practitioners need to be aware of. This Practice Note provides an overview of: • the most common orders sought by employment lawyers in Scottish civil courts • the structure of the Scottish civil court system • the jurisdiction and key features of each relevant court • rights of audience • rules of procedure • important points about: ◦ breach of contract claims in Scotland ◦ injunctive (interlocutory) relief in Scotland ◦ dawn raids in Scotland ◦ industrial relations disputes in Scotland ◦ equality of terms claims in Scotland The purpose of this Practice Note is to provide an introduction to the key features of the Scottish civil court system for employment lawyers. It is not intended to and does not purport to be a comprehensive account of...

Preparing for the auditors—in-house lawyers

Preparing for the auditors—in-house lawyers One of the key dates in your organisation’s calendar is the date of the annual audit. An important part of the auditors’ role is to ensure that your organisation’s processes are fit for purpose. Central to that is your organisation’s approach to legal matters and legal risk. As an in-house lawyer, you need to prepare for the auditors’ visit because inevitably they will want to meet with you. While each audit firm has its own standard set of questions for in-house lawyers, the questions tend to follow certain themes, eg: • your risk register • litigation • applicable law and regulation • contracts • intellectual property (IP) • legal work process • your knowledge and experience Since joining your organisation, you have hopefully had the opportunity to meet with the key directors and heads of function. Those meetings will have given you the opportunity to find out more about many of the issues the auditors will be interested in. See Practice...

View the related precedents about Claimant

ET3 grounds for resisting claim—religion or belief: direct or indirect discrimination, harassment

ET3 grounds for resisting claim—religion or belief: direct or indirect discrimination, harassment [Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 Paragraph 1 of the Grounds of Claim is admitted. 2 It is admitted that on or about [insert date], the Respondent announced the introduction of a new rolling shift system which would require all poultry processors to work on Sunday one week in every four and that the Claimant objected to the new system on the basis that she attends religious services every Sunday. It is admitted that the Respondent has implemented the new shift system. 3 The new shift system was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Respondent had to introduce Sunday working in order to ensure that its poultry business remained profitable and to avoid closing down that part of its operations. A questionnaire circulated amongst employees on or about [insert date] revealed that very few wanted to volunteer for Sunday shifts for a variety of reasons including family and other...

Letter responding to request for consent to relief from sanctions

Letter responding to request for consent to relief from sanctions [insert name and address of claimant or defendant or claimant's or defendant’s legal representative] [insert date] Dear [insert organisation name] [Claimant v Defendant—Case number] Thank you for your letter of [insert date] requesting that our client consents to an application for relief from sanctions [set out details of the requested relief from sanctions]. [ [We have considered your request but confirm that we are unable to agree to it. [Set out reasons for refusing request] OR [Set out reasons why the requested extension is too long, and make proposal for a shorter extension]] OR We have considered your request and are

View the related q&as about Claimant

A litigant in person has filed a list of documents for disclosure but has not filed a disclosure statement. Does CPR 31.21 apply and is there an automatic sanction for failure to provide a disclosure statement? Can the litigant rely on the documents without permission from the court or have relief from the sanctions?

A litigant in person has filed a list of documents for disclosure but has not filed a disclosure statement. Does CPR 31.21 apply and is there an automatic sanction for failure to provide a disclosure statement? Can the litigant rely on the documents without permission from the court or have relief from the sanctions? Disclosure statement CPR 31.10 sets out the procedure for giving standard disclosure. This requires a party to make a list of documents in the relevant practice form (N265) which includes a disclosure statement (see the annex to CPR PD 31A). CPR 31.10(5) requires a list of documents to include a disclosure statement which should indicate the individual statements listed in CPR 31.10(6): • setting out the extent of the search undertaken to locate documents to be disclosed • certifying that the party giving disclosure understands the duty to disclose documents • certifying to the best of his knowledge he has carried out that duty Unless the parties have agreed in writing that...

Is a Part 20 defendant normally required to complete a directions questionnaire ‘DQ’ (Form N181), does this answer change if the claim would be fast track, but the Part 20 claim multi-track? If the notice of allocation sent to the claimant does not require budgets, disclosure discussion report etc, can you ignore and propose standard directions? Also, outside the disclosure pilot, can one use standard disclosure?

Is a Part 20 defendant normally required to complete a directions questionnaire ‘DQ’ (Form N181), does this answer change if the claim would be fast track, but the Part 20 claim multi-track? If the notice of allocation sent to the claimant does not require budgets, disclosure discussion report etc, can you ignore and propose standard directions? Also, outside the disclosure pilot, can one use standard disclosure? In this Q&A, the defendant’s Part 20 claim is a counterclaim that has been made against a person other than the claimant under CPR 20.5. Is a Part 20 defendant required to file a directions questionnaire? CPR 20 deals with counterclaims and other additional claims by the defendant. CPR 20.3(2) sets out which of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to additional claims (which, as defined in CPR 20.2(2) includes counterclaims). Included in the rules that do not apply to additional claims is CPR 26, which sets out the requirement for the parties to file a directions questionnaire (DQ)....

View the related News about Claimant

Understating the incurred costs in a cost budget did not amount to misconduct (Vardy v Rooney)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Cavanagh considered an appeal from a preliminary issues hearing relating to costs assessment proceedings following the trial in this well-publicised litigation. The defendant, Coleen Rooney, had included only the costs which were considered to be reasonable and proportionate within her budget, instead of actual expenditure. The judge agreed with the first instance decision of Master Gordon-Saker and concluded that the defendant had not acted unreasonably or improperly in the approach taken to the incurred costs of her budget. Whilst the court was critical of the lack of transparency and the failure to make clear the basis on which the incurred costs had been set out, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant had acted unreasonably or improperly so as to warrant a sanction for misconduct. This is an important decision as it will inevitably affect the approach taken by some parties regarding the incurred costs of a budget. Written by Claire Kretzmann, associate costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

Construction contracts by WhatsApp and invoices as payment applications (Jaevee v Fincham)

Construction analysis: In this Part 8 claim, the Technology and Construction C ourt (TCC) held that, while informal, the parties had entered a concluded contract by an exchange of WhatsApp messages. The essential terms had been agreed and other terms were not essential or would be implied. The court further held that three out of four invoices issued by the defendant were valid applications for payment, even where two of the invoices did not contain a mathematical breakdown of the sum due. In their context, the invoices were sufficiently clear and intended to be payment applications. Written by James Frampton, barrister at Keating Chambers, and Liam Hendry, senior associate at Archor LLP.