Legal Analysis: Equality Act 2010, Eggs & Chicks Regs, Jarvis v Swan

This assignment presents a comprehensive legal analysis addressing three distinct tasks. The first task delves into the Equality Act 2010, examining key sections, implications, and related legislation. It explores the Act's application in maintaining ethical business practices, specifically concerning ...Read More

I NEED YOU DO ME 3 DIFFERENT TASK PLEASE
ANSWER ALL THOSE QUESTION AND DO ALL
LEGAL SEARCH

Contents
TASK 1: EQUALITY ACT, 2010.........................................................................................................3
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................5
TASK 3: EGGS AND CHICKS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2009................................................6
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................7
TASK 4: JARVIS V SWAN TOURS LTD [1973] QB 233..................................................................8
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................9

TASK 1: EQUALITY ACT, 2010
1) Section 182 (2) act came into force when the Equality act, 2010 was passed.
2) This law applied in respect of maintaining ethics in respect of undertaking two major
reason such as:
 Keeping privacy in the business through maintaining equality regarding not disclosing
any of the information of the employees.
 Equal treatment is given to the employees in terms of security regarding not
infringing any person rights.
3) The name of legislation which is repealed under the act is Sex discrimination act, 1975
which is repealed under the act of Equality act.
4) Ministry of crown are the other offices which are responsible for preparing the act.
5) In respect of understanding the power of the Scottish minsters regarding making regulation
is relating to removing any person from the public duty if they are not working in the set
directions.
6)
a) In respect of terminating the employees regarding carrying the rights to remove from the
post in respect of disability as they are carrying the business as well. Thus, carrying major
liabilities regarding protecting their interest from suffering any critical injuries. It is the
owners right to ask pre-employment question in respect of examining their capacity and skills
to attain the task or not. Thus, exception are undertaken in respect of attending any test or
capable to carry out any intrinsic part of the job.
b)
 The removal is undertaken in respect of working or employed under the seafarers in
which they are demanded to present the medical fitness certificate
 To monitor the criteria of working which they are applying to attain the task. In this
aspects if they not reaches to particular target, the owner carry the chance to terminate
the person.
c)
The reaction which is faced in the first examples is relating to firstly carrying the physical
certificate regarding handling the heavy work load and also goods which is carried to and fro
from the ship (Landon and Williams, 2019). This in such manner, disability and health issues
causes major accidents which results in affecting their day to day working.
It is necessary in the business, the reaction of employees are judged to attain any particular
task as per their own criteria. Thus, in respect of setting the particular target results in gaining
advantages through handling the matters as per the company norms.
d)
Sources from where the information are presented as:

 Redley and et.al., 2019
 Dobson, 2016
e) List of sources are
1. Read and et.al., 2018
2. Morris, Morris and Sigafoos, 2016
3. Annetts and Day, 2019
4. Robinson, Moore and Hooley, 2018
7)
a) True, as this rights is also imposed by the government regarding securing thy right of the
disabled person at work place if they are carrying the adequate skills to attain the task in right
way.
b) False, as every person are equal in the eyes of the law and also for the owner point of view.
Thus, this not resulting in any comparison between the disable and non-disabled person.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Annetts, S. and Day, R., 2019. The informed study project: An innovative online self
evaluation of fitness to practise within a professional higher education degree
programme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 56(4). pp.529-541.
Dobson, V. J., 2016. Leeds Beckett University Library: Our Response to the DSA Changes
and Support for Students with Disabilities. Collaborate: Libraries in Learning
Innovation. 1(1).
Landon, M. and Williams, T., 2019. The Equality Act 2010. Fitness for Work: The Medical
Aspects. p.50.
Morris, D., Morris, A. and Sigafoos, J., 2016. Adopting (in) equality in the UK: the Equality
Act 2010 and its impact on charities. Journal of Social Welfare and Family
Law. 38(1). pp.14-35.
Read, S. and et.al., 2018. Disabled people’s experiences of accessing reasonable adjustments
in hospitals: a qualitative study. BMC health services research. 18(1). pp.1-10.
Redley, M and et.al., 2019. “Reasonable adjustments” under the UK's Equality Act 2010: An
enquiry into the care and treatment to patients with intellectual disabilities in acute
hospital settings. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 32(6).
pp.1412-1420.
Robinson, D., Moore, N. and Hooley, T., 2018. Ensuring an independent future for young
people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND): a critical examination
of the impact of education, health and care plans in England. British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling. 46(4). pp.479-491.

TASK 3: EGGS AND CHICKS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2009
1) It is came into force on 14th September 2009 and applied to England only.
2) The name of the minster is Jim Fitzpatrick who is managing the position and department of
the Environment, Food and Rural affairs.
3) In respect of managing the working under the Eggs and Chicks (England) regulation, the
main provision of this section is mentioned under section 2 (2) (a) and (b) of the European
Community act, 1972.
4) Under the commission regulation they allows the workers to put mark on the egg as in
respect of dot and not on such mark which covers the whole egg. The mark should be
indelible, visible and at least 10 mm and such procedure is to be done before putting the egg
on the incubator (Owen and et.al., 2016). Thus by reflecting this term mentioned in the
present case, such liberty is not given to the Mulbery Tree Farm regarding marking it on egg
as it is clearly rubbed off when it is touched by any person.
5) In respect of undertaking the application for packing centers to grade egg, the application
is to be made to the secretary of the state under article 5(2) of the commission Regulation
(EC) No 589/2002 to apply for packing of egg (Uğurlu and et.al., 2017). The term period
which is given to farmers is for the period of 28 days within the beginning of the day once
secretary of the state received the application of undertaking the packaging procedure.
6) In context of understanding the two mitigating factors which results in amounting to
penalty by the court is relating to the:
 Eliminating or reducing the risk in the business through which they enhances the
results of non-compliances in business.
 Action taken by P in respect of repairing the impact of harm which is caused due to
non-compliances.
7)
a) In respect of understanding about the requirement which kamil had met is relating to
taking strict action against the offences which is committed in business. Thus, they met up
with the requirement which is mentioned in schedule 1, 2 or 3 or any such requirement such
as to take strict action if any such records are retained by the person which is necessary to be
provided to the secretary of the state (Wright and et.al., 2016). Such records not provided
with the stipulated time period.
b) In this case few things are examined which are not met by the Kamil regarding not giving
the notice in proper written format or also not authorized by anybody corporate. As by taking
any electronic mode without the permission of owner is not ethical and thus results in
violating their rights (Guzmán, Sáenz and Hidalgo, 2019). It is necessary that communication
must be made through the electronic mode before inspecting any places.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Guzmán, M., Sáenz, L. and Hidalgo, H., 2019. Molecular and Antigenic Characterization of
GI-13 and GI-16 Avian Infectious Bronchitis Virus Isolated in Chile from 2009 to
2017 Regarding 4/91 Vaccine Introduction. Animals. 9(9). p.656.
Owen, M and et.al., 2016. The occurrence of Salmonella spp. in duck eggs on sale at retail or
from catering in England. Letters in applied microbiology. 63(5). pp.335-339.
Uğurlu, M and et.al., 2017. Effects of protein in diet and sex ratio on egg production, egg and
hatching chick weight, fertility, hatchability and embryonal mortality in pheasants
(Phasianus Colchicus). Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. 19(2). pp.231-238.
Wright, A. P. and et.al., 2016. The rise and decline in Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis
outbreaks attributed to egg-containing foods in the United States, 1973–
2009. Epidemiology & Infection. 144(4). pp.810-819.

TASK 4: JARVIS V SWAN TOURS LTD [1973] QB 233
1) In this case the judges are Lord Justice Stephenson and Lord Justice Edmund Davies.
2) The leading judgment is given by the Lord Justice Stephenson.
3) The name of the first judge is Lord denning
4) The three reason behind the dissatisfactory of the holiday is relating to the:
 As the promise is made regarding having regular house party but in second week also,
there is no house party scenes.
 He was disappointed with the Ski-ing too, as it is far away from the places where they
are staying (Butler, 2018).
 The cakes which are promised are also not very nice as it is potato crisps with little
dry nutcakes which is not mentioned in the holiday packages.
5) There are two major reason of filling the suit under the high court is relating to:
 Not getting sufficient amount as amount is paid half in respect of terms of
compensation.
 The liable is also made under the mental distress which is faced by attending such
holiday (Beumers, 2016).
6) The appeal case is won by plaintiff regarding getting claim for £125 but the claims which
is raised by plaintiff are all rejected as it not giving any serious remedies to reduce the impact
on health (Halson, 2019).
7)
a) In case of Charlie, the claim is rejected as nothing specific is mentioned in the contract
regarding the swimming pool and any indoor games. Thus, the claim in respect of mental
distress is rejected under this aspects (Fraser, 2016).
b) In this case, the hotel carry the right to pay the actual losses which is incurred but in this
case, the losses is not examined by the hotel. Thus, not liable to get any compensation for the
losses incurred.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Beumers, M. T., 2016. Schadevergoeding voor genotsderving en teleurstelling. En wat het
Engelse recht ons daarover kan leren. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Burgerlijk
Recht. 2016. p.10.
Butler, D., 2018. Employer liability for workplace Trauma. Routledge.
Fraser, G. R., 2016. Landscape Professional Practice. Routledge.
Halson, R., 2019. The recovery of damages for non-pecuniary loss in contract and tort a
unified approach. In Research Handbook on Remedies in Private Law. Edward Elgar
Publishing.