Sentences with phrase «appeal decision confirms»

The Court of Appeal decision confirms that in certain circumstances organisations can be vicariously liable for persons they do not formally employ.

A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision confirms that evidence of substance - related safety risks across an employer's workforce (including both union and non-union workers) may be taken into account when assessing the permissibility of random testing of unionized workers.

A recent Court of Appeal decision confirms that insurance companies don't have to tell claimants about limitation periods.

Not exact matches

An official FIFA statement read: «The FIFA Appeal Committee has decided to reject the appeals lodged by both the Uruguayan player Luis Suárez and the Uruguayan FA, and to confirm the decision rendered by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee on 25 June 2014 in its entirety.

Portsmouth's administrator Andrew Andronikou confirmed to Sky Sports News on Friday that he had been told by the Premier League to pay Tottenham but that he would appeal their decision.

A statement from CAS read: «The appeal filed on 12 December 2016 by Club Atletico Velez Sarsfield against the decision issued on 24 August 2016 by the single judge of the sub-committee of the FIFA players» status committee (the challenged decision) is dismissed and, accordingly, the challenged decision is confirmed.»

Pistorius» lawyers have already confirmed they will appeal that decision to the Constitutional Court and that their client should remain free on bail while they do so.

Samsung confirmed it will appeal the decision and said via a spokesperson «We are disappointed with this ruling and believe it severely limits consumer choice in Germany.»

You can appeal to the court against their decision, but you must do this within 28 days of getting this notice which confirms the adjudicator's original decision.

The Court of Appeal's decision in Hasan confirms that at present English law does not recognise a general duty to give reasons for administrative decisions.

At the Federal Court of Appeal, the essential elements of the Federal Court disposition with regard to required accessibility were confirmed even though some elements of the first instance decision were varied, especially to remove the declaration of infringement by the government and the disposition to the effect that the Federal Court was keeping jurisdiction to ensure the effect of its declaration (Canada (Attorney General) v. Jodhan, 2012 FCA 161 (CanLII)-RRB-.

On the 24th January 2017, the United Kingdom Supreme Court returned the Miller judgment on appeal confirming the High Court's decision of 3rd November 2016 that a further Act of Parliament was required in order to fulfil the necessary condition for withdrawal mandated by the European Union Treaties» withdrawal clause.

A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal («EAT») has confirmed that an employer can «refuse» to provide an employee with a rest break even where there is no request from the employee (Grange v Abellio London Limited UKEAT / 0130/16 / DA).

The Alberta Court of Appeal in the recent Buterman decision confirmed that parties may enforce on a settlement deal before they complete and execute the documentation evidencing that settlement.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision: No Prima Facie Discrimination The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, with the majority confirming that the employer terminated Stewart for breaching the Policy's requirement to disclose his drug use, and that discrimination based on his disability was not a factor in the termination of his employment.

Rather, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the decision - making process used by the board of arbitration was flawed.

In its decision released on June 21, 2012 in Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., 2012 ONCA 425, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that where an employer has agreed to continue paying salary to a dismissed employee for a fixed period in a written employment agreement, that is the obligation and it will be enforced.

In sum, the Federal Court of Appeal's decision confirmed the integrity of solicitor - client privilege in cases where a person shares her lawyer's legal advice with commonly interested parties to a transaction.

The decision of the English Court of Appeal in Capital and Counties Bank, Limited v. Rhodes confirmed this for the equivalent section in the English Land Transfer Act 1875.

Shore, together with the recent Court of Appeal decision in Watkins v Jones Maidment Wilson [2008] EWCA Civ 134, [2008] All ER (D) 27 (Mar) confirms that claimants will only be able to delay the start of the primary limitation period in rare circumstances, thereby narrowing the impact of two House of Lords» decisions, which have previously served as a source of comfort for claimants and their advisers.

On March 16, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada («SCC») confirmed the decision of the N.S. Court of Appeal, reinstating...

In a joint judgment, Elias CJ and McGrath J explained, rather weakly, that in declining leave, the Court did not intend to be confirming the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.

Two further decisions impacted on the right to education: in Re JR 17 [2010] UKHL 27 (the appeal from Northern Ireland) the Supreme Court confirmed that a school principal has no common law power to suspend a pupil from school for an alleged breach of discipline, and in A v Essex County Council [2010] UKHL 33 the court ruled (by 3 to 2) that autistic children have no absolute right to an effective education under Protocol 1 to the ECHR.

The Court of Appeal's decision confirms that strata owners can pursue strata - related claims as a class action.

In SoS BEIS v Parry and The Trustees of the Williams Jones's School Foundation, the Court of Appeal (overturning the EAT's decision) confirmed that even if a claim form has no particulars attached, in some circumstances a Respondent can still respond to the claim...

This means that the Court of Appeal's decision will stand and the government has confirmed that legal aid for prisoners will be restored by February 2018 in three main areas: pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board, category - A reviews and decisions on placing inmates in close supervision centres.

In reversing the lower court's decision and finding that the employee was not entitled to the LTIP entitlement, the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the idea of the duty to reasonably exercise contractual power, confirming that the decision to terminate an employee without cause need not be justified by the employer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision and confirmed Denton was still good law and in this case the three stage test was applied correctly.

Affirm: To confirm or ratify; a Court Of Appeals affirms or disaffirms a decision of a lower court.

That decision was confirmed on appeal.

On appeal, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal confirmed its earlier decision, and substituted the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, noting that it is always «open to Parliament to modify the existing law by appropriate legislation that establishes sentencing criteria for «mercy» killing.&appeal, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal confirmed its earlier decision, and substituted the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, noting that it is always «open to Parliament to modify the existing law by appropriate legislation that establishes sentencing criteria for «mercy» killing.&Appeal confirmed its earlier decision, and substituted the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, noting that it is always «open to Parliament to modify the existing law by appropriate legislation that establishes sentencing criteria for «mercy» killing.»

In the recent decision of Fantl v Transamerica Life Canada («Fantl»)[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal of the Divisional Court's decision and confirmed the certification of class claims in negligent misrepresentation, noting that it was time for class actions to «deliver on their promise of access to justice» [2] when it comes to individual iAppeal unanimously dismissed the appeal of the Divisional Court's decision and confirmed the certification of class claims in negligent misrepresentation, noting that it was time for class actions to «deliver on their promise of access to justice» [2] when it comes to individual iappeal of the Divisional Court's decision and confirmed the certification of class claims in negligent misrepresentation, noting that it was time for class actions to «deliver on their promise of access to justice» [2] when it comes to individual issues.

This decision of the Court of Appeal confirms that employers should beware when drafting contracts as on numerous occasions, the ET has looked behind the contract to ascertain exactly what the person carrying out the work is actually doing and if in reality the requirement is for personal service, if the company exerts control over the person, if the person receives pay slips even though they submit invoices and have signed an agreement which imposes restrictive covenants, then even ifthe person carrying out the work has agreed to label of «self - employed», submits VAT returns, is taxed as self - employed and claims tax advantages it is likely that the ET will find that the person is a worker and will be entitled to holiday pay and various other advantages not enjoyed by the self employed.

This statement of law was recently confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the 2012 decision Bowes v Goss Power Products Ltd..1

Referring to previous Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal decisions, the Court confirmed that EI benefits are not to be deducted from damages, because an employer should not be able to benefit from its wrongful termination of an employee which requires that employee to apply for and make use of EI benefit entitlements.

This ruling came after an appeal by Lumalier Corp., on the May 2013 decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan confirming that IPT did not infringe on two of Lumalier «s patents.

However, a recent decision of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) confirms that 100 % cost relief is available to employers in appropriate circumstances.

In a third decision, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed the setting aside of a decision of the Nova Scotia Barristers» Society (2016 NSCA 59).

The Order of Lord Justice Floyd, made available yesterday, confirms that ENRC have been granted permission to appeal the decision of Mrs Justice Andrews in Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2017] EWHC 1017.

EWS v RMT [2004]: Court of Appeal decision on trade dispute ballots confirming that the RMT was not required to serve separate notices on an employer operating industrial relations as a single unit but using two companies as their legal structure.

The Appeals Court upheld the substance of the HCC's decision and after a technical adjustment to the original HCC fine, confirmed a record $ 26.7 million fine on Heineken's operating company in Greece

Western Australia's Court of Appeal in its decision AME Hospitals PTY, Limited v. Dixon [2015] WASCA 63, delivered on 27 March 2015, confirmed, particularly relevantly in the medical negligence claims area, significant scope for persons to bring claim outside the basic 3 - year time limit for such claims arising since November 2005 and the introduction of the Limitation Act 2005.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that, under s. 45 (1) of the Responsible Energy Development Act, an appeal from a decision of the Alberta Energy Regulator is only permitted on questions of law or jurisdiAppeal confirmed that, under s. 45 (1) of the Responsible Energy Development Act, an appeal from a decision of the Alberta Energy Regulator is only permitted on questions of law or jurisdiappeal from a decision of the Alberta Energy Regulator is only permitted on questions of law or jurisdiction.

The original decision to suspend the applicant from the course had been made by the Dean; the student appealed this hearing to an Appeal Committee which provided a full hearing confirming the Dean's decision.

In decision by Associate Chief Justice Hoy, which was unanimously endorsed, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the correct test for place of contract related to electronically transmitted agreements is in the jurisdiction where acceptance is received.

The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the Federal Court's decision.

In a split decision, the majority of the SCC allowed the appeal, and confirmed that employees governed by the Code can only be terminated for just cause.

The Federal Court overturned a previous decision by the Commissioner of Patents confirming the analysis of the Patent Appeal Board reviewing the final rejection issued by the Examiner in charge, and stated that Amazon.com's patent application constitutes statutory subject matter in accordance with the Patent Act.

In its recent decision of Biancaniello v. DMCT LLP, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that a release for «any and all claims» arising from the provision of services included a claim unforeseen by either party.

In confirming the decision of the Motions Judge, the Court of Appeal described the test from Sagaz as a dual inquiry as to whether the new evidence, if presented at trial, would probably have changed the result, and whether the evidence could have been obtained before trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence.