Law360: An employment tribunal judge failed to fully examine a salesman's requests for hybrid work during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the EAT has ruled after finding this might have saved his automatic unfair dismissal claim.

An Employment Judge sitting alone does not have to make further findings or give greater explanation of his conclusions simply because he is sitting alone without the benefit of lay members. The quality of reasons which is essential is judged against a standard which is the same, whether the employment tribunal is composed of one, three or, for that matter, any other permitted number. EAT: Disotto Food v Carlos Santos.

1 Identify and document why the organisation processes personal data Rather than trawling the organisation for personal data in an unfocused way, think about what your organisation does that may involve processing personal data. Identifying the reasons for or purposes of processing data is often fairly straightforward. Drawing a diagram or visual map can help the thought process. A sample is shown below: 2 Document the various activities that take place to achieve each ‘purpose of processing’ Again, it can be helpful to draw diagram or visual map. This is illustrated below, using the ‘staff administration’

In the employment tribunals Case no: [Insert case number] Between: [insert name of claimant] Claimant and [insert

A: Employee details Name [Insert employee name] Start Date [Insert] Job Title [Insert] Line Manager [Insert] Department [Insert] Primary location [Insert location, eg the main place the employee is to be based] Remote/Hybrid/Office-based? [Insert] Buddy/Mentor [Insert name of buddy/mentor] B: Prior to employee’s start date Topic Delivery method Responsible for delivery To be completed by Completed Desk and chair [Insert

1 Absence management policy [Insert details eg Implement a formal absence management policy and procedures, including absence reporting procedures to reduce the impact of absence on service and to facilitate better monitoring of absence rates.] Operational objectives Task owner Completion date [Establish an Absence Management working party to review best practice, needs of the firm and to agree draft policy and procedures.] [Insert name(s) of task owner(s)] [date] [Agree

The sample opt-out notice includes the wording set out in Schedule 1 to SI 2010/772 and the statements required by SI 2010/772, reg 9(6)(aa). Notice to opt out of pension saving If you want to opt out of pension saving, fill in this form and give it to your employer. Your full name........................................................................................................................ Your employer's name.......................................................................................................... Your national insurance number or date of birth.............................................................. I

You should retain records and management information (MI) to enable you to demonstrate that any payments made in respect of personal injury (PI) referrals are lawful. MI

1 Investing in the future (legal and commercial investments) 1.1 To build on the core strengths of our firm, delivering excellence in client service and enhancing brand awareness and value 1.2 To commit resource to the proposed programme of activities to ensure we continue to attract and retain top talent 1.3 To invest [x]% of turnover in strengthening the business platforms: operations, systems, risk management and environment 2 Governance/management 2.1 To review the management infrastructure and processes and develop options for consideration to streamline and strengthen the management of the firm 2.2 To review and restructure the focus, timing and management of senior level meetings to support greater emphasis on strategic planning, innovation and consideration of prepared proposals 2.3 To establish business planning for each legal service and operational area 3 Risk management 3.1 To take forward agreed actions to enhance risk awareness across the firm,

In the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal No: XXX APPLICANT NAME Appellant AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Application for costs under 9 (2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, SI 2014/2604 1 Introduction This is an application under paragraph 9 (2) (b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, SI 2014/2604. The appellant is seeking a costs award on the ground that the respondent has acted unreasonably in their conduct of proceedings. 2 This application is made ‘in-time’ within 28 days of the date of [insert relevant event or decision] and has been served upon the respondent. 3 Background The appellant is in the process of appealing against a refusal of her human rights claim. A’s claim was refused on [insert date] and an appeal lodged on [insert date]. A substantive hearing was listed by the Tribunal to take place on [date] at [insert location]. Both the appellant and respondent were notified of the hearing date on [insert date] through MyHMCTS.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 29 April 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Samsung (case number COMP/39.939). Latest developments The Commission formally accepted binding commitments from Samsung on 29 April 2014. The commitments that Samsung has agreed to are that it will not, for five years, seek any injunctions on the basis of any of its SEPs, present and future relating to technology in Mobile SEPs (for example, smartphones and tablets) against any company agreeing to a licensing framework. The proposed licensing framework consists of a negotiation period of up to 12 months and, if no agreement is reached, a determination of FRAND terms by a court or arbitration. If the parties cannot agree on the form of third party determination, they will have to submit to arbitration.The

Law360, London: Samsung Bioepis has fought back against an application by Alexion to prevent it from selling a biosimilar version of a patented blood treatment drug by a rival, telling a court that this will not infringe the protections of an AstraZeneca subsidiary over the medicine.