Volume 17, Issue 1

Employers often face a plethora of issues in redundancy situations. Likewise, employees often fear or are overwhelmed by the prospect that they may be chosen for redundancy. Whilst these issues have been widely written about there is little discussion of “ bumping .” When the issue appears in the employment tribunal, in cases such as Mirab v Mentor Graphics Limited , it is too late and the employer faces a successful unfair dismissal claim against it. Bumping occurs where an employer makes redundant a junior employee: one whose role has not identified as being at risk of redundancy. The result is that the more senior employee, one whose role was been identified as being at risk of redundancy, is placed into the junior role and therefore becomes subject to terms and conditions that are often less beneficial for example the junior role will inevitably come with a reduction in salary and/or perks. This article explores the legal issues that surround the instances in which an employer should consider “ bumping ,” its relationship with the band of reasonable responses and the resultant effect, if any, of failing to do so.

The successful prosecution of any criminal offence relies on evidence that proves its commission. Although the admissibility of evidence is key at first instance, the weight attached to a piece of evidence i.e. how “reliable” or “persuasive” it is will tilt the scale of justice in one or another direction. The problems with various forms of evidence i.e. that elicited from an eye or ear-witness has been thoroughly explored by academics and lawyers alike. Those same problems are potentially exacerbated where the witness is a child who has not only witnessed a gruesome crime but is required to give evidence in a forum (court) that is accompanied by intimidating surroundings. Whilst witness evidence, regardless of whether it is given by an adult or child, is a factual part of criminal justice, it is salient to note that the entire process has been made more witness-friendly in some commonwealth jurisdictions. This article explores the differences in the rules designed on eliciting best evidence from a child witness in the United Kingdom and India. In so doing, the case law from each jurisdiction is contrasted. There are two aims of the article, the first is to facilitate a conversation where one criminal justice system may learn from another’s experience. The second, a result of the first, is to make suggestions on improving the experience of a child witness in the Indian Criminal Justice Process.

This article approaches tort policy contextually, as an argument around actually available alternatives within a historically-specific legal tradition, like that of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which combines French civil law influence with roots in Islamic law. The article examines alternative tunings of the requirements of tort liability, in view of cases where a technically sophisticated investigation is required to ascertain what precautions the tortfeasor might have taken to prevent injury. For this purpose, it takes as its point of departure a careful assessment of the availability of the “extraneous cause” exception in UAE law, which allows defendants to avoid liability by demonstrating the occurrence of a causal factor outside their sphere of control. To understand when this exception ought to be available, the paper engages in critical dialogue with French doctrines on tort liability, distinguishing a fault-based “subjective approach” from an “objective approach” (strict liability). These doctrines also speak to Arab jurisdictions that have adopted a civil code (like the UAE), modelled after the French one. The article therefore proceeds to situate the tort regime in the UAE Civil Code with respect to those French doctrines. With respect to these, the UAE Civil Code takes an intermediate position drawn from Islamic law. However, additional provisions, e.g. on liability for nuclear installations or for machinery of which a person is in charge, demonstrate a timid reception of the objective approach. The article proposes a reform of UAE tort liability on the basis of the objective approach, which is robust even in complex cases, where an investigation around causation would risk being inconclusive. Finally, the paper considers the additional possibility of arguing for a voluntary assumption of liability on the part of the tortfeasor, as yet another way of orienting tort liability in the UAE towards an objective approach.