The Court Of Public Opinion

In the case of Atchoe v Camden Primary Care Trust [2006, the issue of unauthorised deduction of wages was heard before the Employment Tribunal. The employee worked in maintenance for the employers estates and facilities directorate. In addition, the employee was also occasionally employed out of hours when an emergency arose. This was an on-call system and was organised on a rota basis. If an employee took part he or she would receive additional payments for being on-call. If an employee was called out in an emergency he or she then received further payment for work carried out.

The employees contract stipulated a number of things:

* He had to show evidence that he held the technical qualifications required to work in the position of maintenance worker

* He was expected to take part in the on-call system; and

* The employer retained the right to vary the terms of his employment.

The employer asked the employee to show evidence of his qualifications. It came into question whether the employee was able to provide this evidence. As a result of this, the employer removed the employee from the rota for the on-call system on the grounds of safety. The employee therefore no longer received the extra payment for being on-call.

The employee relied on s13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and claimed that the employer had unlawfully deducted from his pay.

The Employment Tribunal held that the employer had been entitled to remove the employee from the rota on the grounds of safety. However, it was not entitled to deduct from his pay. The Tribunal had based its decision on three authorities upon which the parties had not relied nor made submissions. The employer appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT).

The employer submitted that the Tribunal had erred in its application of s13(3). Having found that the employer was entitled to remove the employee from the rota, the Tribunal should have found that the employer was entitled to deduct from the employees pay. As the employee was removed from the rota, he should not have continued to be paid. In addition, the employer argued that the Tribunal should not have relied on three authorities supporting its judgment upon which the parties had not had any opportunity to make submissions.

The appeal was allowed for the following reasons:

* The Tribunal should not have relied on any authority which the parties did not have an opportunity to make a submission. There had therefore been a material irregularity in the proceedings as neither the employer nor the employee had even mentioned the three authorities.

* The Tribunal had erred in its application of s13(3).

* The Tribunal should have concluded that there had been no unauthorised deduction of pay by the employer. If the employer was legally able to remove the employee from the rota, the employee was no longer entitled to the extra pay.

The decision would therefore reversed.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at article database

Becoming a lawyer in todays society is a noble goal to undertake. There are many jokes about lawyers that we all have heard, but the truth is, it takes a lot of work to become a an attorney. Pursuing a career as an attorney allows one to experience the gift of helping people in ways that most people are unable to. If your heart ever goes out to struggling individuals legal battles, then this career may just be for you.

To get into law school, you must first have an undergraduate degree from an accredited institution. Unlike Medical school, there is not really a certain type of major that is required at this time of writing. Some may major in pre-law which focuses on the government, criminal justice and aspects of politics. But it would be perfectly fine to major in math or history. As long as your GPA is high enough to get into the college and your score well on the LSAT, then you increase your chances of getting into this field. Depending on what type of law you decide to study and the school you go to, requirements for your GPA will be different. For example, in you decide to go to Harvard Law School; your competition will be fierce because most of the people applying will have 4.0 GPAs. On the other hand, if you decide to go to a law school in Hawaii, the GPA requirements will be lower because most people will be trying to go to more recognized law schools. This is not to say that non Ivy League schools will not offer a wonderful education for any individual who is focused and determined. For example, the late Johnny Cochran did not got Harvard or Yale, but received his law degree from Loyola University School of Law in 1962. In 1977 he was named Criminal Trial lawyer of the Year. Cochrane later became one of the most sought after attorneys of his time.

Another point to mention is cost. Cost varies greatly depending on the affluence of the school. The tuition at Harvard is quoted on their website at 35,000 per year with an estimated 21,000 a year for living expenses. A law school in Hawaii is around 10,500 per year. Idaho is reported as one of the lowest with tuition cost of 6,700 per year. However, with inflation these costs are increasing each year. The Law college experience lasts three years currently. After this opportunities open up for Private Practice, Corporate Law, Military and teaching, just to name a few. This is an immense field and again, can offer some very rewarding experiences in your life if you choose to pursue this career.

More articles at articles database

Becoming a lawyer in todays society is a noble goal to undertake. There are many jokes about lawyers that we all have heard, but the truth is, it takes a lot of work to become a an attorney. Pursuing a career as an attorney allows one to experience the gift of helping people in ways that most people are unable to. If your heart ever goes out to struggling individuals legal battles, then this career may just be for you.

To get into law school, you must first have an undergraduate degree from an accredited institution. Unlike Medical school, there is not really a certain type of major that is required at this time of writing. Some may major in pre-law which focuses on the government, criminal justice and aspects of politics. But it would be perfectly fine to major in math or history. As long as your GPA is high enough to get into the college and your score well on the LSAT, then you increase your chances of getting into this field. Depending on what type of law you decide to study and the school you go to, requirements for your GPA will be different. For example, in you decide to go to Harvard Law School; your competition will be fierce because most of the people applying will have 4.0 GPAs. On the other hand, if you decide to go to a law school in Hawaii, the GPA requirements will be lower because most people will be trying to go to more recognized law schools. This is not to say that non Ivy League schools will not offer a wonderful education for any individual who is focused and determined. For example, the late Johnny Cochran did not got Harvard or Yale, but received his law degree from Loyola University School of Law in 1962. In 1977 he was named Criminal Trial lawyer of the Year. Cochrane later became one of the most sought after attorneys of his time.

Another point to mention is cost. Cost varies greatly depending on the affluence of the school. The tuition at Harvard is quoted on their website at 35,000 per year with an estimated 21,000 a year for living expenses. A law school in Hawaii is around 10,500 per year. Idaho is reported as one of the lowest with tuition cost of 6,700 per year. However, with inflation these costs are increasing each year. The Law college experience lasts three years currently. After this opportunities open up for Private Practice, Corporate Law, Military and teaching, just to name a few. This is an immense field and again, can offer some very rewarding experiences in your life if you choose to pursue this career.

More articles at articles database

In the case of Vaseghi and another v. Brunel University and another [2006, the employees made separate complaints of race discrimination and claimed compensation against their employer. Settlement discussions began before an initial set of tribunal hearings in 2004, however, no settlement was reached.

Following the initial hearings, the employer released a quarterly newsletter which outlined that it was spending a large amount of money on defending employment claims. It made particular reference to two tribunal hearings which had cost in excess of 60,000. It also criticised employees and the trade union for pursuing unfounded allegations and making unwarranted demands for money. The two employees lodged grievances in response to the newsletter. They claimed the following:

* The employer had initiated the attempts at settlement;

* The employer had raised the prospect of financial settlement; and

* The newsletter had amounted to victimisation.

The grievance committee heard oral evidence on the discussions between the parties in their attempts to reach a settlement, however, it was decided that the grounds for the grievance had not been established. The employees then began new tribunal proceedings.

At the new hearings the employer challenged the admissibility of the evidence relied upon before the grievance committee by the employees. The employer argued that the evidence concerning the settlement discussions were protected by without prejudice privilege. The tribunal concluded in favour of the employer, and held that the evidence should have been inadmissible. It should be noted however that the tribunal also held that the references to the discussions in the grievance committees report would be admissible. If they were not, the case for the employees would be prejudiced. The employer appealed and the employees cross appealed.

The employer submitted that the references to the discussions in the grievance committees report should have benefited from the without prejudice privilege. They argued that the privilege was of more importance than the due administration of justice in relation to putting the case of the employees under severe prejudice.

The employees submitted that they should be allowed to use the references to the discussions in the grievance committees report, as that was the only evidence of what happened in the settlement discussions in support of their victimisation claims. They claimed that the allegations of unwarranted demands for money were not supported by what had occurred in the settlement discussions. Therefore, they argued that they should have been able to rely on the settlement discussions, despite them technically being subject to the without prejudice privilege, because there was an overriding public interest in eradicating the evils of victimisation. If they could not rely on the evidence they would not be able to present their case for victimisation.

The employment appeal tribunal held that the employees claims would have been too severely hampered were they not permitted to rely on the settlement discussions as evidence against the allegations that they had not made unwarranted demands for money. The employer, through the publication of the newsletter had brought the matter into the public domain, and subsequently could not rely on the without prejudice privilege. To prevent the employees from relying on the evidence in support of their victimisation claims would have been a clear abuse of a privileged occasion. The eradication of discrimination and victimisation was deemed more important than the protection of the without prejudice privilege. Therefore the appeal was dismissed and the cross appeal allowed.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at article database

The rising incidences of DUIs (driving under the influence) in Arizona have prompted lawmakers to institute higher fines, making it more difficult for offenders to circumvent the consequences of their actions.

The Arizona DUI fines are now pegged at $1,450 for first-time offenders and $3,400 for second-time offenders. This includes standard fines, surcharges (amounting to 80 percent of the fines), additional $500 fine imposed on first-timers, and $1240 for repeat offenders. These additional fines were imposed in August 2005, to augment the standard fines that only covered expenses for court procedures.

The additional money goes to improvements in highway safety systems and prison housing facilities, according to Arizona lawmakers. The Arizona Department of Public Safety is adding more police \\ along highways to help deter and arrest drivers who go on the road while under the influence of alcohol and other substances. The fines also go to prison construction assessments, since every DUI offender found guilty needs to serve a mandatory prison sentence.

Note that fines actually vary depending on the gravity of the offense. First-time offenders found to have very high alcohol content in their bloodstream (.15 or more) may be asked to pay as much as $2,700. The fines stated above are the minimum fines, and depending on the judge, an offender may be forced to pay a much higher amount. In addition to the crippling fines, DUI offenders may also lose their driver’s license and are ordered to submit to alcohol screening and drug and alcohol counseling sessions.

If you happen to be charged with DUI and cannot pay the fine upfront, you have the option of paying it over time. Immediately consult with an experienced Arizona DUI attorney to prevent losing your license and to protect yourself from other possible fees. But the best advice is still prevention – don’t drink and drive. This way you stay safe, avoid fines and keep your record clean.

More articles at free articles database

The defendant resigned and found employment with one of the claimants competitors. Shortly after her resignation, the claimant discovered that the defendant had sent three e-mails to her personal e-mail account prior to leaving the company. The e-mails concerned:

* Presentations she had made to the claimants customers;

* Feedback which customers had given in relation to the claimants services; and

* Prices of the claimants products.

The claimant was of the opinion that the information contained in the e-mails was confidential and therefore violated the terms of the defendants contract of employment. The claimant confronted the defendant with its discovery.

The defendant said that she had sent the e-mails to her personal e-mail account in error, and offered to let the claimant view her personal e-mail account to show that she had not breached the terms of her contract. The claimant tried to persuade the defendant to stay in its employment, but was unsuccessful.

The claimant then instructed its solicitors to write to the defendant alleging that the defendant had breached the terms of her employment which amounted to breach of confidence. The claimant also requested the return of all its materials which were in the defendants possession. The defendant replied to the letter stating that the e-mails were not sent to anyone else, and that once the error had been discovered, she had not even opened them.

The claimant did not respond to her letter. They instead issued proceedings against her and applied for an interim injunction. They alleged that the sending of the e-mails to her personal account amounted to her using confidential information in contravention to her contractual obligations. They also alleged that by her failing to immediately return their materials, she had further breached the terms of her contract.

The claim was dismissed. The court held the where the e-mails had remained unopened the confidential information had not been used in a way which amounted to breach of confidence. Although she had not immediately returned the materials, she had previously offered the claimant the permission to view her personal e-mail account and to delete the e-mails relating to the claimants confidential information.

In addition to this, the court held that the information which was the subject of the claimants complaint was utterly innocuous and that the claimant had reacted totally disproportionately. The matter should not have been taken to court and the defendants undertakings had been adequate.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at article database

Becoming a lawyer in todays society is a noble goal to undertake. There are many jokes about lawyers that we all have heard, but the truth is, it takes a lot of work to become a an attorney. Pursuing a career as an attorney allows one to experience the gift of helping people in ways that most people are unable to. If your heart ever goes out to struggling individuals legal battles, then this career may just be for you.

To get into law school, you must first have an undergraduate degree from an accredited institution. Unlike Medical school, there is not really a certain type of major that is required at this time of writing. Some may major in pre-law which focuses on the government, criminal justice and aspects of politics. But it would be perfectly fine to major in math or history. As long as your GPA is high enough to get into the college and your score well on the LSAT, then you increase your chances of getting into this field. Depending on what type of law you decide to study and the school you go to, requirements for your GPA will be different. For example, in you decide to go to Harvard Law School; your competition will be fierce because most of the people applying will have 4.0 GPAs. On the other hand, if you decide to go to a law school in Hawaii, the GPA requirements will be lower because most people will be trying to go to more recognized law schools. This is not to say that non Ivy League schools will not offer a wonderful education for any individual who is focused and determined. For example, the late Johnny Cochran did not got Harvard or Yale, but received his law degree from Loyola University School of Law in 1962. In 1977 he was named Criminal Trial lawyer of the Year. Cochrane later became one of the most sought after attorneys of his time.

Another point to mention is cost. Cost varies greatly depending on the affluence of the school. The tuition at Harvard is quoted on their website at 35,000 per year with an estimated 21,000 a year for living expenses. A law school in Hawaii is around 10,500 per year. Idaho is reported as one of the lowest with tuition cost of 6,700 per year. However, with inflation these costs are increasing each year. The Law college experience lasts three years currently. After this opportunities open up for Private Practice, Corporate Law, Military and teaching, just to name a few. This is an immense field and again, can offer some very rewarding experiences in your life if you choose to pursue this career.

More articles at articles database

Information greatly affects the decisions you make – the more you know about the laws and penalties imposed by the State of Arizona on DUI offenders, the more unlikely you are to get behind the wheel after drinking.

If you are found have less than .08 percent alcohol in your blood at the time of your arrest, you are considered to be impaired to the slightest degree and will be sentenced to 10 days in jail (with nine days suspended provided you attend and complete an alcohol education seminar). You need to pay about $1,450 (minimum) in fines, but the judge can impose as much as $2,500 and send you to jail for six months. These penalties apply if your blood alcohol concentration is between .08 percent to less than .15 percent.

If your offense is more serious, and you are found to have .15 percent blood alcohol concentration, be prepared to spend more time in jail – 30 days, with 20 days suspended provided you finish alcohol screening and education and agree to equip your vehicle with an ignition interlock device. The judge can impose higher penalties, especially if it is your second offense. You can spend as much as 6 months in jail, pay much more than $2,500 in fees and surcharges and be subject to about 3 years of probation.

Remember that the State of Arizona does not have to prove that you have a blood alcohol concentration of at least .08 percent to convict you – if they find any trace of alcohol and prove that it impairs your ability to drive, you can be convicted. Be safe and do not drive when you’ve had drinks, even if it is just an ounce or two. Ask friends to drive you home, or hail a cab. When it comes to DUI, the old adage still makes sense – it is better to be safe than be sorry.

More articles at free articles database

In the recent case of Draper v Mears Ltd [2006 the issue of whether the employer had followed the Employment Acts correctly in dismissing an employee was brought to light. The employee was employed as a plumber and was given use of a company van. The employer had a sensible rule that any company vehicle should not be operated after the consumption of alcohol. The employer operated a zero-tolerance policy in this respect, of which the employee was fully aware.

After work on one occasion, the employee parked the van near to a public house, which happened to be close to his work premises. He went to meet a colleague who had invited him out for a drink. Two of the employers managers happened to go to the same public house and discovered the employee sitting in the passenger seat of another company vehicle, with his colleague in the drivers seat.

One of the managers was of the opinion that the employee was a little drunk and challenged his proposed use for personal reasons of the colleagues company vehicle. The employee was sent a letter dated 29th October 2004 informing him he was required to attend a disciplinary hearing. The issues to be considered being cited as:

‘Using a vehicle for social purposes. Conduct which fails to reasonably ensure health and safety of oneself and others. Insubordination. A breach of the company vehicle regulations and procedures’

The employee was dismissed after the disciplinary hearing. The primary reason for his dismissal, which was set out in writing the next day, was that he was intending to drive his company vehicle after the consumption of alcohol. The employee claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and brought a claim before the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim and the employee appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

The issue arose as to whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in deciding whether the employer had complied with the standard dismissal and disciplinary procedures as outlined in the Employment Acts. The appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:

* Firstly, the employer had to set out why he was thinking of dismissing the employee and provide the employee with an invitation to discuss the matters at hand.

* Secondly, the tribunal were entitled to find that the statutory procedures had been complied with. The letter of 29th October had successfully outlined the general nature of the alleged misconduct.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at articles database

Probate is a legal process in which the authenticity of a will is proved; total properties identified, inventoried and appraised; taxes and debts paid; and the remaining properties distributed. The term probate is derived from the Latin word probare, which means to prove.

Suppose all of a persons property, sometimes known as assets, were in that persons name. The term assets includes real property (lands and houses), tangible personal property (jewelry, vehicles, etc.), and intangible personal property (stocks and shares, bank accounts, etc.) Normally a persons spouse and children will inherit his assets after proving to the court that they are legal heirs. They do this by submitting the marriage and birth/adoption certificates. But they can claim full control of the assets only if the assets are validated by any court of law. For this, they need to submit the death certificate and a record of all the decedents assets, with documentary proof, to the court. The court will appoint an administrator, known sometimes as a personal representative, to verify, inventory and appraise the assets. But some assets, such as bank deposits, for which the decadent nominated someone when opening the account, are transferred into the latters account without any court intervention.

On the other hand, lets say a person prepared a clear document in which he stated how much and to whom the assets should be distributed. If he hasnt named a personal representative, the court will appoint an executor and a guardian for his children to manage the assets. The person should have signed the document in front of two or more witnesses and gotten it notarized. This document is called a will. As he passed away after writing a valid will, he is considered to have died testate. The term testate means to make a will. The person who wrote the will is known as the testator. If the person died without leaving a will, he will be known to have died intestate. Law requires that heirs prove the authenticity of the will to the court. Then the court will administer to pay any debts and taxes from the assets and validate the remaining assets owed by John. The court will issue an order for transfer of his property to the beneficiaries, as directed by the will or according to inheritance laws.

The time taken for the whole probate process depends on a number of factors, such as the size of the estate, validation of the will, the appointing of an executor if theres no will, and finding and notifying all beneficiaries. If all the papers are not complex, the process takes less than a year, in general. If the will is contested, probate can take years to complete.

Probate provides detailed information about probate, how to avoid probate, probate court, probate law and more. Probate is the sister site of Free Last Will And Testament Packages.

More articles at article database