100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Employment Law Cases || with Error-free Solutions. $11.49   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

Employment Law Cases || with Error-free Solutions.

 10 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Employment Law Cases
  • Institution
  • Employment Law Cases

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] IRLR 820 - Facts correct answers In order to find that a contract is in part a sham, it was not necessary to show that both parties intended to paint a false picture as to the true nature of their obligations. Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] IRLR 820 - Principles co...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 12  pages

  • September 13, 2024
  • 12
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
  • Employment Law Cases
  • Employment Law Cases
avatar-seller
FullyFocus
Employment Law Cases || with Error-free Solutions.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] IRLR 820 - Facts correct answers In order to find that a contract
is in part a sham, it was not necessary to show that both parties intended to paint a false picture
as to the true nature of their obligations.

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] IRLR 820 - Principles correct answers Tour guides who worked
on a casual 'as-and-when-required' basis claimed that they were employees.

Carmichael v National Power plc [2000] IRLR 43 - Facts correct answers For a person to be an
employee, there needs to be an obligation on the employer to provide work and an obligation on
the individual to perform that work in return for a wage or some form of remuneration.

Carmichael v National Power plc [2000] IRLR 43 - Principles correct answers For a person to be
an employee, there needs to be an obligation on the employer to provide work and an obligation
on the individual to perform that work in return for a wage or some form of remuneration.

Express and Echo Publications v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367 - Facts correct answers The
individual's contract allowed him to provide a substitute worker if he was not available.

Express and Echo Publications v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367 - Principle correct answers It is
inconsistent with a contract of employment that a person can provide a substitute. There must be
an obligation to do the work personally.

Lister v Hedley Hall Ltd [2001] IRLR 472 - Facts correct answers A warden sexually abused the
claimants while they were in his care.

Lister v Hedley Hall Ltd [2001] IRLR 472 - Principle correct answers The correct approach to
vicarious liability in tort law is to ask whether the employee's wrongdoing was so closely
connected with his or her employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer liable.

Massey v Crown Life Assurance [1978] 1 WLR 676 - Facts correct answers A branch manager
voluntarily changed his status from employee to self-employed, but claimed unfair dismissal
when his contract was terminated.

Massey v Crown Life Assurance [1978] 1 WLR 676 - Principle correct answers If the true
relationship of the parties is that of employer and employee under a contract of service, the
parties cannot alter the truth of that relationship by putting a different label on it.

Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 - Facts correct answers Were Uber drivers self-employed, as Uber
claimed, or workers within the protection of employment law?

Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 - Principle correct answers The Supreme Court decided by a
majority that they were workers because the 'label' of self-employment was untrue. In practice,
they were subject to a vast amount of control by Uber.

, Colen v Cebrian (UK) Ltd [2004] IRLR 210 - Facts correct answers The employers alleged that
the claimants' contracts were tainted with illegality because the way commission was allocated
amounted to a fraud on the Revenue.

Colen v Cebrian (UK) Ltd [2004] IRLR 210 - Principle correct answers Where illegality is
alleged, the burden of proof is on the party making the allegation to show that the contract had
been entered into with the object of committing an illegal act or had been performed with that
objective.

Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1986] IRLR 69 - Facts correct answers It was alleged that a
sales manager had used confidential information when he set up a rival business.

Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1986] IRLR 69 - Principle correct answers The circumstances
in which an employee can be prevented from disclosing confidential information are set out
under 'The obligation not to disclose confidential information'.

Malik v BCCI [1997] IRLR 462 - Facts correct answers The claimant employees alleged that
they had suffered damage as a result of the way in which the bank had conducted business prior
to its collapse.

Malik v BCCI [1997] IRLR 462 - Principle correct answers Employers must not destroy the
mutual trust and confidence upon which cooperation is built without reasonable and proper
cause.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 376 - Facts correct answers A partially sighted
employee suffered an injury which resulted in a further loss of vision.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 376 - Principle correct answers The tortious
standard of care that the law demands is that which 'an ordinary prudent employer would take in
all the circumstances'.

Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1991] IRLR 522 - Facts correct answers
The claimants suffered losses as a result of the employer's failure to inform them about their
right to purchase added years of pension entitlement.

Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1991] IRLR 522 - Principle correct answers
In certain circumstances, it will be necessary to imply an obligation on the employer to take
reasonable steps to bring a contractual term to the employee's attention.

Avon County Council v - Howlett [1993] 1 All ER 1073 - Facts correct answers There was a
dispute about the circumstances in which an employer was entitled to recover an overpayment
made to an employee.

Avon County Council v - Howlett [1993] 1 All ER 1073 - Principle correct answers Employers
may be entitled to restitution of overpayments owing to a mistake of fact, but not a mistake of
law.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller FullyFocus. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $11.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

72042 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$11.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart