This book provides a detailed survey of the law relating to public interest disclosure. It examines how the new system has developed since the coming into force of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), and provides up-to-date practical guidance on the key issues that arise in practice. Analysing the legal framework in the area, both under PIDA and the disparate sources of law that can apply, it provides in-depth commentary on case law and legislative developments. It examines the structure of PIDA, litigation procedure and remedies under the Act, data protection, confidentiality, copyright, defamation issues, and the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as the contractual and fiduciary duties of employees, statutory obligations (both regulatory and criminal), and the Corporate Governance Codes. Since the publication of the first edition, there have been substantial developments in the area, including those regarding whether a disclosure tends to show a Public Interest Disclosure, the burden of proof, remedies, and alternative dispute resolution. This new edition also covers the employment tribunals' new powers to pass PIDA claims to the appropriate regulator, where the claimant consents, and provides extensive coverage of a number of important decisions emerging from the Court of Appeal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, including Babula v Waltham Forest College, Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust and Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester. Written by an author team with extensive experience in the area, and making use of checklists and worked examples, the book is an essential reference work for employment practitioners dealing with cases involving public interest disclosure issues. It will also be of interest to private and public sector employers seeking guidance on whistleblowing procedures and policies.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.