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2015, even though their "entire agreement" clauses indicated to the Appellant that any previous agreement(s) would be superseded.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.
Our Dispute Resolution Team have recently had success in settling a clinical negligence claim against the NHS, securing damages in the sum of £13,000 from the Defendant, plus the Claimant's legal costs. The claim included damages in respect of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder suffered by the Claimant and for care and attendance provided by the Claimant's family throughout recovery. Our team obtained a swift admission of liability from the Defendant through a robust Letter of Claim, allowing to move to quantum and ultimately settlement in under 10 months.
Our London Dispute Resolution Team helped our clients resolve proceedings against their former brokers relating to allegations of negligence which became apparent following a fire at our clients' commercial premises. The proceedings were complex and involved five sets of experts in the fields of Insurance Broking, Quantity Surveying, Loss Adjusting, Forensic Accountancy and Forensic IT. A settlement was agreed after Cyber Settle negotiations less than two weeks from trial. Details of the settlement cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons.
Our London Employment Team has been successful in having the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismiss an appeal which was heard at the EAT yesterday, 8 July 2019. Costs were also awarded in the Claimant's favour. Curzon Green was instructed by the Claimant.
By way of background, the Claimant was successful in her claims of pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the lower Employment Tribunal last summer. She was awarded a substantial 5 figure sum (comprising compensation for financial losses and injury to feelings). An appeal was brought by the Respondent to challenge a small part of the award. The appeal was dismissed in full by the EAT and the Claimant was awarded costs, in addition to the sums awarded by the ET in summer 2018.