Search for: "Seldon v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 37
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2010, 2:44 am
Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills intervening) [2010] EWCA Civ 899; [2010] WLR (D) 206 ”A rule providing for the compulsory retirement at 65 of partners in a firm of solicitors was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims relating to recruitment and promotions within the firm. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 3:10 am
Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and another intervening); [2012] UKSC 16; [2012] WLR (D) 124 “A rule providing for the compulsory retirement at 65 of partners in a firm of solicitors could be justified as a means of achieving legitimate aims relating to recruitment and promotions within the firm. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 1:34 am
On 17 to 19 January 2012, the Supreme Court heard an appeal in the case of Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes . [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 4:31 am
In United States v. [read post]
15 May 2012, 7:48 am
On 25 April 2012 the Supreme Court handed down two major judgments on age discrimination: Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15 and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] UKSC 16. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 11:44 am
Days after Wulfe and Valdez, a state appellate court opined in Betancourt v. [read post]
29 Dec 2015, 8:24 am
Skinner, Seldon v. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 9:08 am
Summary The EAT has issued a decision in the well-known and long-running retirement case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes, which dealt with the question: Was the retirement age of 65 PROPORTIONATE to achieve the firm’s stated aims of retention of staff and workforce planning? [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 4:07 am
In Seldon v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 4:07 am
In Seldon v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 4:07 am
In Seldon v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 4:29 am
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 2:34 am
The following judgments will be handed down by the Supreme Court on Wednesday 25 April 2012: Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership). [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 12:37 pm
TripAdvisor Another Court Finds Online Statements With Links Are Not Defamatory – Seldon v. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 6:04 am
McCree, Judge Wade Harper McCree, Judge Wade McCree, Leslie Seldon, Mail Fraud, Ministerial Exception, Morning Docket, Nude Pictures, Nudity, Partner Issues, Religion, Seldon v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:16 am
PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v SSHD, W & BB v SSHD and Z, G, U & Y v SSHD, heard 30 – 31 January 2012. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 2:11 am
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 2:15 am
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
Contrary to Devereaux’s contention, the allegedly defamatory statement made by Burrows was not actionable because it was absolutely privileged as a matter of law (see Brady v Gaudelli, 137 AD3d 951, 952; El Jamal v Weil, 116 AD3d 732, 734; Bisogno v Borsa, 101 AD3d 780, 781; Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d 512, 513), and does not support a finding of a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Seldon… [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 4:05 am
PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, W & BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Z, G, U & Y v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 30 – 31 January 2012. [read post]
