Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
By virtue of section 7(2)(a) of the 1974 act rehabilitated or spent convictions are admissible in criminal proceedings where they are relevant to "the determination of any issue". This is a narrow exception, which allows a sentencing court to have regard to all previous convictions including spent convictions in determining the appropriate ...
Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 also creates an offence of having a pointed or bladed article in a public place without good reason or lawful authority. [21] Certain exemptions exist, namely if the knife is a pocket knife that does not lock in place and if the cutting edge (not blade) is under 3 inches.
Lord Irvine LC held that the operatives were redundant and that "the language of the [Employment Rights Act 1996 section 139(1)(b)] is in my view simplicity itself". He referred to Nelson v BBC [1] which had wrongly propagated the "contract test" view, which was wrong. A simple causation test was applied, based on the word "attributable" in the ...
An employee has an employment contract. ERA 1996 section 1(2) states, that the main terms of the contract must be in writing and provided to the employee within two months of the start of their employment. This document is called a "written statement of particulars". It confirms the main express terms of the employment contract.
Title 1 - General Provisions; Title 2 - The Congress; Title 3 - The President; Title 4 - Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States; Title 5 - Government Organization and Employees
The unjust dismissal provisions in section 240 of the Code cover unjust constructive dismissals. They also cover unjust dismissals made by the open unambiguous action of the employer. This issue was resolved conclusively in the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Srougi v. Lufthansa German Airlines, [1988] F.C.J. Nº 539.
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to limitations on First Amendment-based free speech placed by private operators.