(1) Any contract of employment under which a shop worker or betting worker who satisfies section 36(2)(a) was employed on the day or before the relevant commencement date is unenforceable to the extent that it—
(a) requires the shop worker to do shop work, or the betting worker to do betting work, on Sunday on or after that date, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the shop worker with shop work, or the betting worker with betting work, on Sunday on or after that date.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), any agreement entered into after the relevant commencement date
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Brexit: The UK's departure from the EU on exit day ie Friday 31 January 2020 has implications for practitioners dealing with provisions in the CPR relevant to cross border matters, including CPR 5.4C (discussed below). For guidance on the impact of Brexit on the CPR, see Cross border
When is quantum meruit and quantum valebat relevant?Claims in quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods) arise in diverse situations ranging from where contractual terms are silent on issues of payment to where there is no contract at all (Serck v Drake & Scull).General
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intentWounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent is triable only in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must prove the defendant unlawfully
This Practice Note examines:•why negative pledge clauses are used in commercial transactions •the consequences of breaching negative pledge provisions•how negative pledges are viewed in the context of security and quasi-security, and•key considerations when drafting a negative pledge clauseWhere
0330 161 1234
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.