A department head accused of harassing four women was not permitted to learn the names of his accusers due to confidentiality issues. The EAT re-affirmed that the primary test when ordering disclosure of documents is whether disclosure is necessary for fairly disposing of the proceedings, not whether the document is confidential in nature. The Court ruled the alleged harasser must demonstrate that this information is necessary in the context of his specific case.
The National Assembly for Wales enacted the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act on April 29, 2015 (the “Act”). The stated purpose of the legislation was to improve efforts to prevent gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and to increase protection and support for the victims of such violence and abuse. See Section 1. The legislation defines “abuse” broadly as “physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse.” Section 24.
Waltham Forest LBC applied for wardship orders in respect of two young girls to be returned from Somaliland, as well as a forced marriage protection order and female genital
The claimant, a Sri Lankan national, was working in England with a valid work permit when she was made redundant. The claimant claimed that she had been subjected to sex discrimination and harassment on numerous occasions. She also claimed that her dismissal was a further act of sex discrimination. In this case it was held that a worker knowingly employed under an illegal employment contract could bring a sex discrimination claim as the claim was not so inextricably bound up with her employment as to be defeated by a defence of illegality.
Mr and Mrs Y entered into a surrogacy agreement with Mr and Mrs Z following unsuccessful IVF treatments. An embryo was created using Mrs Z and Mr Y’s DNA and was transferred to Mrs Z in May 2018. When Mrs Z was five months pregnant, Mr Y died. X was born in 2019. As part of the surrogacy agreement, Mr and Mrs Y were to apply for a parental order immediately after the birth of the child. Given Mr Y’s sudden death prior to, the birth certificate named Mr Z as the father. Mrs Y wanted to have Mr Y recognised as the father.
The appellant (Y) appealed against a decision that the respondent local authority had been entitled to find that she was not homeless. Y had applied to the local authority for housing assistance, claiming that although her husband had not physically assaulted her or threatened to assault her she was scared that he would, and had left him. Under the Housing Act 1996 s.177(1) a local authority was obliged to rehouse a person where it was not reasonable for that person to continue to occupy accommodation if it would lead to domestic violence.
