Human rights Religion. The European Court of Human Rights awarded 2,000 to an employee who had been required not to display a religious cross by her employer, an airline. It ruled that the interference with the employee's right to manifest her religion under art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights was disproportionate despite the legitimate aim of her employer (in the form of its uniform policy). The Court dismissed a similar claim by a nurse because the hospital's health and safety policy was a stronger justification for the interference than the airline's uniform policy. It also dismissed claims for breaches of art 9 by a registrar who did not want to preside over civil partnerships and a relationship counsellor who disapproved of same-sex relationships; in the particular cases the legitimate aim of preventing discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation outweighed the right of the applicants to manifest their religious beliefs under art 9.
Pension Pension Scheme. The Chancery Division held, at a preliminary hearing, that an order for rectification of the rules of the claimant company's pension scheme would not cause the scheme to contravene the requirements of s74 of the .
Pension Pensions schemes. Following the winding up of two pensions schemes and in considering the question of the employer's debt under s75 of the the Chancery Division held that the rules of the schemes, properly construed, permitted the trustees to effect a buy out in stages, so that they could interpose the fixing of the applicable time in the manner described.
Employment Sex discrimination. The employee, a domestic servant, had brought a claim, inter alia, for direct discrimination and harassment against her employer, who was a diplomat. On the whole, the employee had been successful in her claim. The employer appealed against the tribunal's decision claiming diplomatic immunity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the employer did not have diplomatic immunity in respect of the employee's claim as the employer had contended.
Employment tribunal Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employer firm of solicitors' appeal against the employment tribunal's decision that the employer had victimised the employee. The EAT took the view that the tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.
Pension Pension scheme. The Chancery Division previously gave judgment finding that the previous trustee of a pension scheme had had a duty to consider adding a share of surplus in respect of a deferred member's pension at the date when the member left service. The trustee of the scheme sought the court's determination on outstanding issues. The court held that the previous trustee had complied with that duty for most of the relevant period and ruled on the date on which a new policy had been implemented.
Pension Pension scheme. D, a member of an occupational pension scheme administered by the first and second defendant companies, made a complaint to the claimant Pensions Ombudsman seeking to have a compromise agreement, reached between the three defendants and the trustees of the scheme in respect of the winding-up of the scheme, set aside. The Ombudsman made a reference pursuant to s150(7) of the . The Chancery Division determined that the Ombudsman was not able to assume jurisdiction for D's complaint.
Pension Pension scheme. The claimant trust company was the trustee of a pension scheme known as the IBM Pension Plan plan. It sought an order rectifying a trust deed and rules, which created, amongst other things, the 'C Plan' to grant employees a right to retire on an unreduced pension at any age between 60 and 63. In a supplemental judgment, the Chancery Division held that, applying settled law, IBM was not required by its imperial duties to consent to the amendment which the trust company had requested, nor could the trust company make the amendment without that consent.
Employment Equality of treatment of men and women. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by nine female employees against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissing their claims under the . The court found that the EAT had been entitled to overturn the decision of the Employment Tribunal who had erred in respect of the issue of objective justification.
European Union Employment. The General Court of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 2 and para (a) of the second subparagraph of art 6(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2000-78-EC (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation). That reference was made in the context of proceedings involving Dr Odar and his former employer, Baxter Deutschland GmbH (Baxter), concerning the amount of compensation on termination of employment received by him under the Contingency Social Plan concluded by Baxter and its works council.