The Dispute Resolution team recently acted for two holidaymakers who suffered bed bug bites whilst abroad in Cape Verde on a package holiday with a well-known provider. Our team alleged fault and improper performance of the holiday contract in accordance with the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992. Following negotiation, our team secured a global settlement for our clients in which they each took away significant four figure sums to compensate them for the pain and suffering caused by the bites and the loss of enjoyment they had encountered on their holiday as a result. The settlement was secured without the need for court action and also covered our client's legal costs.
The Dispute Resolution team were recently instructed to assist with securing vacant possession of a property for a landlord. The tenants failed to vacate the property following service of a Section 21 Notice, despite several reminders by the landlord. Our team assisted with issuing possession proceedings and secured a possession order against the tenants requiring them to vacate the property. Following a repeated failure to exit the property, Curzon Green obtained a warrant of possession and instructed Court bailiffs, eventually leading to successful repossession of the property by the landlords.
It can be difficult as a landlord to navigate the complexities of serving notice and getting problematic tenants to leave a property, but Curzon Green have considerable expertise to guide landlords through what can otherwise be a stressful and time-consuming process.
Curzon Green's London Employment Lawyers were instructed in the first (and quite possibly the last) apellate judgment on employee shareholder status under S.205A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Employee shareholder status was a form of employment status in force between 1 September 2013 and 1 December 2016. It allowed employees to give up some of their employment rights (such as a statutory redundancy payment or to bring a claim for unfair dismissal) in exchange for shares in their employer's company. The Appellant in this case, along with other senior members of the New Look management team, became an employee shareholder in 2015. Employee shareholder agreements were executed following assurances by New Look that they would gain tax advantages, and that once the tax advantages had been realised the employment protections would be reinstated. Over the next 3 years the Appellant's employment terms were varied upon a number of promotions and a new directors' service agreements were executed by the management team in 2017. None of these contractual variations explicitly gave him (or his fellow directiors) back the employment rights signed away for the tax benefits of employee shareholder status in 2015, even though their "entire agreement" clauses indicated to the Appellant that any previous agreement(s) would be superseded.
The EAT accepted that in principle, legally, employee shareholder status may be terminated if the parties enter into a subsequent inconsistent contractual arrangement. However, on the facts in this case (as decided by the Tribunal) the subsequent service agreement was not inconsistent with employee shareholder status and the Appellant cannot bring a claim against New Look for unfair dismissal following his termination as its Managing Director UK & ROI and Interim CEO, accordingly.
Our London Employment Team has successfully secured an Unless Order and struck out part of a claim.
The Employment Team acted for the Respondent company. The Claimant failed to comply with original deadlines set down by the Tribunal.
After notifying the Tribunal of these issues, an Unless Order was granted. This meant that unless the Claimant complied with the new deadline, the claim would be struck out.
Following the Claimant's continued failure to comply, the claim was automatically struck out.
If you are engaged in proceedings, it is imperative to recognise the importance of complying with Case Management Orders set down by the Employment Tribunal - failure to comply is not taken lightly and could lead to the claim being struck out. We are able to advise on practice and procedure having experience acting for both Claimants and Respondents in employment litigation.