A retention of title clause can be a useful way to protect yourself in business if you supply goods on credit, as it provides you with a form of insurance if your customers fail to pay you. Depending on how the clause is drafted you will either have the right to take your goods back or to claim a stake in any money the customer has received from selling them on. Used appropriately they can be very effective.

A pharmacy dispenser has won her claim of constructive dismissal after her employers spoke openly about her case before it had been concluded

As a general rule the courts try not to interfere in commercial contracts when a dispute arises as they rightly believe that businesses are best placed to negotiate the terms on which they will deal with each other and, save for in very limited circumstances, that they should be bound by the deal they have struck.

An optician has won her claim of unfair dismissal and discrimination after her employer tried to reclaim training costs following her maternity leave.

Timing can be crucial when deciding to dismiss an employee, as shown in a recent case before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Companies face penalties if they employ people from other countries without establishing that they are entitled to work in the UK. However, employees must be given every opportunity to provide the necessary documents before they are dismissed or their applications are rejected.

When entering any sort of contractual relationship it is essential to understand that, as well as those express provisions agreed orally or set out in writing, you will also be bound by a series of terms which will be automatically implied.

The Supreme Court ruling in the Pimlico Plumbers case and the Employment Tribunal decision involving Hermes help to clarify the difference between 'worker' and 'self-employed' and could have a significant impact on the gig economy.

A Muslim bus driver has lost his claim that he was subjected to harassment based on his race or religion while at work.

The High Court has ruled that a 96-hour shift pattern for firefighters was unlawful because it breached the Working Time Regulations 1998.