ELS Research: The English Legal Systems, Method & Skills (Case Study Sample)
It's only two pages actually if you check the attachment i sent you its only 15 questions that i need you to answer them and I have maximum of 2,000 words so thats why I ordered for 1650 words, please check again i don think that it'll take more than 3 or 4 papers I have a case about "Gisda Cyf v Barratt", Employment law, I have 12 Questions about this case and I have to answer it and reference using OSCOLA type of reference, and I have some attachment that i want to submit. Thank yousource..
LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF BUSINESS & LAW
2015/16 SEMESTER 1
MODULE TITLE: English Legal Systems, Method & Skills
TITLE OF ASSESSMENT: Assessment 2
COURSE(S): LLB (Hons) Law
ASSESSOR(S): Melissa Askew, Ade Dawodu, Nicola Farrell and Nicholas Kirkland
The Gisda Cyf versus Barratt court case involves an employment law case. Ms. Barratt, the respondent, claims to be dismissed from her workplace unfairly. The case had its first hearing and ruling before the Employment Tribunal. The employment judge made the decision regarding the case. However, the decision was appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal before the court of appeal judge. The study gets deeper into the findings, and the law procedure followed the basis of the appeal and final decisions made (Benard, 2012)
1)The appellant in the case under study is, Gisda Cyf, a small company that is dealing with delivering charity services. The respondent to the case is Ms. Lauren Barratt. She was suspended from her job due to allegations of her misconduct in a private party.
2)In the appeal case, the solicitor firm acting for Ms. Barratt is the Employment Tribunal. On the other hand, the solicitor acting for Gisda Cyf are the group of employers' organization.
3)The barrister representing Ms. Lauren Barratt is Mr. J C Hoult. Gisda Cyf, on the other hand, is described by Mr. Greatorex.
4)Ms. Barratt is dismissed on unfair grounds. Her dismissal was without timely notice. She claims that the dismissal letter was sent to her while she was away in London attending a crucial event. She, therefore, did not get the letter in time but could only access it after her return from London. Besides, she claims that her dismissal was also based on the sexual discrimination grounds.
5)The court is, therefore, asked to decide whether the dismissal was legal or not. In particular, it has to be legally determined the procedure, nature of communication and timeline in the process of terminating a contract by the employer to the employee. It is required that the active schedule of the contract termination of Ms. Barratt be fully decided. Furthermore, the claim of Ms. Barratt suspension on the ground of sexual discrimination is of great concern (Benard, 2012)
In the case, the Court is expected to interpret the law and establish a legal and fair framework of dismissing an employee. As it appears in most instances, there has been a disparity on the legal timeline between the period of communication and the dismissal time. Therefore, the effective date of job termination of Ms. Barratt is of great importance and sensitive in nature.
6) In the ruling by done by the Employment Tribunal and the Employers Appeal Tribunal, there is a conflicting understanding on the effective time of contract termination. The Employers' Appeal Tribunal maintained that the respondent had all reasons to read the letter. They further argued that the defendant had traveled deliberately to London to avoid reading the letter. However, the Employment Tribunal dismissed the argument by the Employers' Appeal Tribunal. Through Mr. Hoult, they insist that Ms. Barratt did not travel to London deliberately and even if he were informed of the letter, could still not have read from it.
In Ms. Barratt situation, the Employers' Appeal Tribunal assumed that she received the letter and read of it. The judge in the appeal case made a decision, based on the legal headnotes referred to, that the date of the employment termination of the respondent was valid. The employer observed the three months period as stipulated by the law. However, regarding the dismissal of the defendant based on the sexual discrimination, the judge Mummery LJ, found it baseless. The claim had no evidence and could not hold in the case.
7) A legal headnote according to Saravanan & Ra...
- Finstuen v. Crutcher and Charles and April Land v. Yamaha Motor CorporationDescription: The challenge arises when the two parents from a city that has such laws to that does not recognize such relationships...2 pages/≈550 words | 2 Sources | APA | Law | Case Study |
- TTC and Mandatory Drug TestingDescription: Law Case Study: TTC and Mandatory Drug Testing...4 pages/≈1100 words | 3 Sources | APA | Law | Case Study |
- Statute of Frauds FritzDescription: Undergraduate level Case Study: Statute of Frauds Fritz...1 page/≈275 words | 1 Source | APA | Law | Case Study |