Search for: "Nicholson v. Nicholson" Results 221 - 240 of 361
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Feb 2024, 2:57 am by Frank Cranmer
Case-notes DLA Piper has just published a series of notes on leading cases on religion/belief and employment law: Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd and Garden Court Chambers (2020) Fahmy v Arts Council England (2023) Furlong v The Chief Constable of Cheshire Police (2019) Grainger Plc and others v Nicholson (2010) Higgs v Farmor’s School (2023) Joanna Phoenix v Open University (2024) Ladele v London Borough of Islington… [read post]
22 May 2023, 12:13 am by Frank Cranmer
Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360 established five criteria for what constitutes a protected belief for the purposes of section 10 (Religion or belief) of the Equality Act 2010, as follows: The belief must be genuinely held; It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness,… [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 4:06 am by assoulineberlowe
Other cases holding that non-payment of wages to an otherwise exempt employee does not give rise to an FLSA claim include Nicholson v. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 11:40 am
Nicholson’s girlfriend at the time, returned home while the Mr. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 10:00 am by Guest Blogger
Both Nicholson Price and Guy Pessach explore this complication in their papers for this symposium. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 10:52 am by Giles Peaker
See also, in the landlord and tenant context, Chandless-Chandless v Nicholson (1942) 2 KB 321, 323 per Lord Greene MR. [read post]
24 Jul 2022, 11:15 pm by Frank Cranmer
At a preliminary hearing to determine whether her belief was protected by s.10 Equality Act 2010, the initial Employment Tribunal held that her belief was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” and, therefore, failed the fifth criterion established in Grainger plc v Nicholson [2009] UKEAT 0219 09 0311. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 2:04 am
In  concluding that Kogan had not sufficiently contributed to the screenplay [para 85], even by adding to the first three drafts, Hacon J considered the following points and authorities:  Adding elements not themselves covered by copyright, such as scenic effects, is not a sufficient contribution (as per Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch 503)Providing helpful criticism and expert feedback on the work is not a sufficient contribution (as per Wiseman v George Weidenfeld &… [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 12:20 am by Rosalind English
The law on murder and assisted suicide means that at present, Mr Nicholson cannot call on the assistance of anybody, however close, to end his suffering. [read post]