Not exact matches
The
claimant solicitors received civil legal aid funding while acting for clients in
appeals against homelessness
decisions under s 204 of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996)(s 204
appeals).
The
claimant thereupon renewed her
appeal against the original
decision on quantum.
The
Claimant contended (and it was accepted by the EAT) that an employee must be offered the opportunity to
appeal against any formal
decision made by his employer and that must not amount to a formality or sham.
At first instance the
claimant was denied relief from sanctions and so
appealed against that
decision.
In a landmark
decision in Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [1] the Court of
Appeal has ruled that a number of
claimants can pursue their claim
against a Zambian mining company and its English parent in the English courts despite the claim's limited connection to England.
The Court of
Appeal upheld the
decision of the Employment
Appeal Tribunal agreeing that the employer had discriminated
against the
Claimant by imposing the PCP requiring him to work late and not adjusting it to accommodate his disability.
This was an
appeal against a
decision that a will made by Mrs Chumber in favour of her two grandsons (A and V)(the November will) was valid as opposed to an earlier will in favour of the deceased's eldest son, the
claimant (C).
An analysis producing the result that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the secretary of state's
appeals would take the form: (i) the Social Security Act 1998 (SSA 1998), s 15 provided for an
appeal against «any
decision of a Commissioner»; (ii) the «
decision» in each of the cases was to be found in para 1, dismissing the
claimant's
appeal; (iii) the secretary of state was not seeking to challenge that
decision; (iv) by analogy with Lake v Lake [1955] 2 All ER 538, he had no right to challenge the reasoning on an issue upon which he was unsuccessful — jurisdiction — when the ultimate
decision was wholly favourable to him.