For information on the coronavirus (COVID-19) job retention scheme (CJRS), see Practice Notes: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (original version to 30 June 2020) [Archived] and Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (original version to 30 June 2020)—FAQs [Archived]. Information on the CJRS is provided in the form of: • guidance for employers: Claim for your employees’ wages through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme • guidance for employees: Check if your employer can use the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme These two sets of guidance

Under section 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), in relation to an employee who has a protected characteristic, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against that employee: • as to the employee’s terms of employment • in the way the employer affords the employee access, or by not affording the employee access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for receiving any other benefit, facility or service • by subjecting the employee to any other detriment Age is a protected characteristic, see Practice Note: Age, gender reassignment, race and sex. While the concept of discrimination for the purposes of section 39(2) encompasses a wide range of prohibited conduct (see: Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc)—overview), your query primarily concerns two forms of discrimination

This Q&A presupposes that (i) a disclosure was made, verbally (orally); (ii) that disclosure was said to be the reason for either a dismissal or a detriment, or both; (iii) a claim to the employment tribunal has been made wherein an issue has been taken as to whether the disclosure is ‘protected’ but (iv) there is no dispute that the person to whom it was made was a relevant person. The employment tribunal will focus much more on what was said at the time of the alleged disclosure, and less on the degree of specification of it in the claimant’s pleadings. The first context is the statutory framework and how it has been considered by the courts. A ‘protected disclosure’ means a ‘qualifying disclosure’ which is made by a worker in line with what is set out in section

It may be arguable that the placement order was not validly made in the absence of the medical report as the court may not have known without the medical report whether a specialist foster placement/a period of medical or therapeutic intervention was needed. Whether the order was validly made will be dependent on the facts of the case and whether or not the medical report contained information which had not been considered as part of the care plans when the placement orders were made.

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed the condition in question is an agricultural occupancy condition imposed on a dwelling house before the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) came into force, as it refers to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (TCPA 1971). The condition, therefore appears to have been imposed some time ago. The condition requires that the dwelling house can only be occupied by a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture, as defined in TCPA 1971, s 290(1), or in forestry (including any dependants of such persons residing with them), or a widow or widower of such person. Agriculture is defined in the TCPA 1971 as: ‘horticulture, fruit

The legal consequences of withdrawing an offer of employment will generally depend on the specific circumstances of the offer and the reasons for withdrawing it. Of immediate relevance is likely to be whether, in consequence of the offer being made, a contract of employment has been formed. One would need to consider: • whether the offer has been accepted • the conditions attached to the offer In the normal course, once an offer of employment has been accepted and any applicable conditions have

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) operates the statutory scheme (since 2012) for the calculation and payment of maintenance by a non-resident parent (NRP) to the parent with whom the child lives. The CMS calculates how much child maintenance is payable by first considering the gross annual income of the NRP, considering any factors which affect this, such as pension payments and support for other children, and then apply either a rate or a formula, depending on what the gross weekly income is. Where the

As noted in the The Civil Court Practice 2017 (The Green Book), insolvency jurisdiction is unchanged. See: Application of the Rules: The Civil Court Practice 2017

Unlike the power under section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) to refuse to determine certain planning applications, there is no power under TCPA 1990, s 192 to refuse

At common law, where a landlord grants a tenancy which is structured as: an initial fixed term; with a periodic tenancy to follow (eg for two years, and so on from year to year), it guarantees a tenancy for at least the period of the fixed term plus the first period of the periodic tenancy (in the example, three years at the least). The tenancy does not determine at the end of the initial fixed period (see eg Doe d Chadborn v Green (not available in Lexis®Library)). The fact that a tenancy for a fixed term of two years, with provisions that it then becomes a contractual periodic tenancy, is also an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) does not change the position.

A landlord wishing to obtain possession of property let on an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) may serve notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). Broadly speaking, if a claim for possession is made following the service of a valid section 21 notice, the court is required to make an order for possession (subject to various conditions). Although there are various pre-conditions to the service of a section 21 notice,

The Tenant Fees Act 2019 (TFA 2019) prohibits landlords and letting agents from requiring tenants of certain residential tenancies in England to make payments other than those specifically permitted. The tenancies affected include assured shortholds, subject to exceptions. See, generally, Practice Note: Prohibition of tenant fees. By TFA 2019, s 1, a landlord must not require a relevant person (which includes a tenant) to make a prohibited payment to the landlord in connection with a tenancy. Payments are prohibited unless specifically permitted by TFA 2019, Sch 1. The issue raised