Search results

Recently, the focus of UK and European flood risk management policy has been towards promoting the uptake of property level flood adaptation measures. Despite this focus, the take‐up of property level flood adaptation measures (both resilient and resistant) remains very low. One of the apparent barriers to uptake is the cost of installing such measures. This study aims to investigate the cost of adopting resilient reinstatement measures by considering a small number of actual properties that were flooded in Cockermouth during 2009.

Secondary data obtained from a loss adjusting company provides the basis for analysis. The data take into consideration the cost benefit of resilient repair, assuming the same properties were flooded again. The traditional reinstatement costs were established as the actual cost of putting the properties back in a like‐for‐like manner while resilient reinstatement costs were established by creating new resilient repair schedules based on recommended good practice.

The results of the study show that the percentage extra cost for resilient reinstatement over traditional repair cost ranged from 23 to 58 per cent with a mean of 34 per cent depending on the house type. However, while resilient repairs were found to be more expensive than traditional (i.e. like‐for‐like) methods, they were found to significantly reduce the repair costs assuming a subsequent flood were to take place. Resilient flood mitigation measures seem most promising and, given repeat flooding, will help in limiting the cost of repairs up to as much as 73 per cent for properties with a 20 per cent annual chance of flooding, which indicates that the up‐front investment would be recovered following a single subsequent flood event.

The uptake of resilient reinstatement among the floodplain property owners in the UK is very low and one of the reasons for the low uptake is lack of understanding of the cost and benefit of adopting such measures. While there have been previous studies towards investigating the costs of resilient reinstatement, it is believed that this is the first to use real claims data and information to analyse the tangible costs/benefits of resilient reinstatement.

Examines the situation in the UK in some detail with regard to three aspects of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union. Looks at the aims, together with an analysis and appraisal. Considers, first, information and consultation rights with regards to the transfer of undertakings and redundancies, followd by the right to collective action and, lastly, protection in the event of unjustifiable dismissal. Presents case law throughout as examples. Concludes that the UK has attempted to prevent social and economic rights for workers from being included in the final charter despite fierce opposition. Compares this view together with the UK suspicion of Europe against the views of the other member states.

Saudi Arabia recently amended the Labour Law provisions governing the unfair dismissal of employees in the private sector. The previous version of the legislation, which had been in force for many years, had entitled employees to demand reinstatement or make a claim for fair financial compensation equal to the damages sustained. The recent amendments eliminated the right of a dismissed employee to seek reinstatement and also revised the rules relating to monetary compensation. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse and evaluate the new approach, which has been criticized heavily. In addition, it suggests feasible alternative ways to handle unfair employee dismissal, which can be incorporated into the current Saudi Labour Law.

This paper presents an analysis of the existing approach to dealing with unfair employee termination in the Saudi Labour Law. It is based mainly on information collected from various legal materials, such as books, review of judgments issued by the Commission for the Settlement of Labour Disputes in Saudi Arabia and relevant Islamic rules.

The results of this examination clearly show that there are several flaws in the current approach to dealing with the issue of unfair dismissal of employees. To correct this situation, workable approaches have been suggested for possible consideration and incorporation into the Saudi Labour Law.

To the author’s knowledge, this is the first academic study to analyse the current approach to handling unfair employee dismissal in the Saudi Labour Law.

In a previous monograph a discussion took place on stages one and part of stage two of the three stage process in an unfair dismissal action, namely the employee having to show that he has been dismissed (stage one), and some of the reasons for dismissal which fall within the statutory categories, namely the employee's capability and qualifications; misconduct and redundancy (part of stage two). In this monograph an analysis is proposed on the two remaining reasons, these being the contravention of a duty imposed by an enactment and some other substantial reason. There will then follow a discussion on the test of fairness as constituting the third of the three stage process and on the remedies available when the tribunal finds that the employee has been unfairly dismissed.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Since their creation through the Industrial Training Act 1964 to hear appeals against levies, the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals has grown considerably. One aspect of this jurisdiction, unfair dismissal, is examined here. Basic principles related to the law of unfair dismissal are examined. The practice and procedure of an industrial tribunal solely in connection with unfair dismissal cases are examined in greater detail. A case study is used to illustrate the important aspects of procedure. Appendices give relevant forms and extracts from the appropriate Code of Practice.

Considers the ways in which property managers can minimize difficulties after a disaster by appreciating potential damage by smoke, water and hazards such as asbestos. Summarizes the benefits of proactive damage management to be: stabilization of damage, effective reinstatement and disaster recovery planning. Examines one case of damage management : Portsmouth City Council′s civic offices. Concludes that property managers should develop closer links with loss adjusters since swift action can make the difference between survival and failure of a business.

What should be insured, what can be insured, how best to insure it are things which are forever changing. ‘What if’ situations are limitless so I shall be concerned here only with insurance against damage to property and ignore consequential loss, liabilities, construction risks, obligations under leases and other aspects.