Litster v Forth Dry Dock [1989] 1 All ER 1134
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:14:17 UTC
This related to an unfair dismissal claim and some regulations enacted by parliament specifically to make the laws comply with an EC regulation.
Therefore the courts were to use purposive reasoning so that the regulations should be interpreted on the basis that they mean to be in compliance with EU directives and case decisions and, where necessary, this means inferring words or meanings that are not explicitly state in the directive.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer etc
This case concerned an inadequately implemented working time directive (the implementing legislation contained improper exceptions). Confirmed that legislation post-dating (as well as legislation pre...
Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
The case started when plaintiffs relied on Equal Treatment Directive in a claim of unlawful sexual discrimination. Though the directive was found to be too imprecise to give direct effect, the court...
C-268/06 Impact
(See the rule against contra legem interpretation): Ireland implemented a directive into national legislation a year after the deadline. Irish law generally prohibits retroactivity. Plaintiffs had a...
Case C-212/04 Adeneler
This was a case concerning a directive’s attempts to convert a long series of fixed term contracts into one employment relationship, unless there was objective justification for the arrangement versu...
R v Civil Service Appeal Board, ex parte Cunningham
Plaintiff was dismissed from his job as a PE teacher at a detention centre. He was dismissed under legislation that stated that those who provide “police services” are not entitled to go to industria...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.