Results.
6 judgments found.
|
|
|
| May 2000 |
|
|
Unilateral adverse change to redundancy terms without consent terminates employment and preserves prior separation benefits.
-
Employment law — unilateral adverse variation of employment terms — redundancy benefits — whether treated as fundamental term — effect of privatization on employer obligations — consent and acquiescence
|
31 May 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed: summary dismissal for dishonesty upheld; Supreme Court cannot entertain pure factual appeals under section 97.
-
Employment law — summary dismissal for dishonesty; discrimination — differential sanctions justified where offences differ; appellate jurisdiction — s.97 limits appeals to points of law or mixed law and fact.
|
16 May 2000 |
|
An unqualified shareholder directive to merge allowances is binding; directors cannot qualify it and inability to pay is no defence.
-
Company law — Shareholder supremacy — Unqualified shareholder directive to merge allowances into salary binds holding company and subsidiaries; directors/managers cannot qualify shareholder decisions; inability to pay not a defence to entitlement; court may order staged payment scheme in public interest
|
15 May 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed where defendants failed to enter appearance and unreasonably delayed prosecution, justifying the default judgment.
-
Civil procedure — default judgment — failure to enter appearance — unreasonable delay and ‘‘sleeping on rights’’ — application to set aside refused; Fatal Accidents Act claim.
|
9 May 2000 |
|
Interlocutory injunction improperly granted as it conflicted with statutory banking liquidation procedures; appeal allowed, injunction discharged.
-
Banking law — compulsory liquidation under Banking and Financial Services Act — interlocutory injunction — conflict with special statutory liquidation procedure — Companies Act s.399 — principles for granting interlocutory injunctions — limits on injunctive relief against the State.
|
9 May 2000 |
|
Master of the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to tax High Court costs; the allocatur was set aside.
-
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Jurisdiction to tax costs incurred in another court — Master of the Supreme Court not a Taxing Officer for High Court costs — High Court Rules Order 40; Supreme Court Act Order 15
|
2 May 2000 |