International law firm Hill Dickinson has announced the promotion of 31 senior lawyers across the firm, with three made up to partner level, ten to legal director and eighteen promoted to senior associate.
The recent case of V -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd & Others [2016] EWCOP 21 held that Reporting Restriction Orders (RROs) granted in the Court of Protection (COP) can extend beyond the death of the patient subject to the proceedings, and can even apply to prevent the patient being identified in press reports of ensuing inquest proceedings.
Collateral warranties remain a key document in the construction suite of documents. They are normally required when building works are carried out, or sought when existing recent developments are let, sold on or refinanced.
The commercial litigation team at international law firm Hill Dickinson has been shortlisted for Litigation Team of the Year at The Lawyer Awards 2016.
The bunker trade in particular has been keenly awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in the 'RES COGITANS' case (PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and another -v- O W Bunker Malta Limited and another [2016] UKSC 23).
By writing to an employee while she was on sick leave for work-related stress, raising concerns with her employment that were neither serious nor urgent, an employer acted in repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and the employee had been constructively dismissed.
The wait is over. On 4 May 2016, the General Data Protection Regulation ('the Regulation') was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Every organisation, both within and outside the European Union ('EU'), controlling and/or processing EU citizens’ personal data must ensure they comply with the provisions of the Regulation by 25 May 2018.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that disciplinary action against an employee for improperly promoting Christianity to a junior colleague was not unlawful religious discrimination.
The Supreme Court held that WM Morrisons Supermarkets was vicariously liable for an employee’s violent assault on a customer. There was a ‘sufficiently close connection' between the employee’s job (attending to customers) and the assault on the customer.
