The court refused. The initial presumption in favour of assessing competence was offset by several opposing factors. Among other things, the overlap between the two procedures was of limited importance; little progress had been made in the proceedings in Gibraltar; the risk of the proceedings in Gibraltar being reactivated and leading to an adversarial conclusion is limited. The law of the Admiralty of Gibraltar reflected English law, and the English Court was able to deal with the matter effectively under Gibraltarian law. The Court also stressed that a ”one-stop-shop approach” only in the English courts would be more effective than skimming criminal claims to be dealt with in the courts of Gibraltar. The Court therefore refused to decline jurisdiction or stay the tort actions. A ”legal basis” is necessary to justify the processing of each category of data. A legal basis may be a legal requirement, such as .B. registration for tax purposes necessary for a legal obligation or the performance of the contract, such as.B. pay the person or ensure the execution of the works. For a lot of employee data, the legal basis is a ”legitimate interest”, i.B.

collecting data to improve employee performance or to respond to a dispute. The Court recognized that, under the 1952 Arrest Convention, any claim for damages for unlawful arrest had to be dealt with under the law of the place where the arrest took place, i.e. the law of Gibraltar. However, at this stage, it has not considered the merits of the counterclaim, but has only addressed the issue of jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact that, in stopping a ship in Gibraltar (as permitted by the 1952 Arrest Convention), the owners required certainty as to their claim does not mean that the Court of Gibraltar also has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the owners are liable as a result of that criminal arrest. The Arrest Convention has left this question open. The owners had initiated English legal proceedings in this case with respect to their claims under a charter party in time. As part of their counterclaim in those proceedings, the charterers claimed tortious and tortious damages in connection with an alleged unlawful arrest of a ship in Gibraltar. The Court concluded that the wording of the English exclusive jurisdiction clause in the CharterParty was broad enough to allow charterers to do so. In the event of a breach of restrictive agreements or misuse of confidential information, an employer may seek damages from the employee or former employee or obtain an injunction preventing the employee from violating the agreements or abusing the confidential information. It may also be possible to sue the new employer for breach of contract or breach of trust. Controllers and processors based in Gibraltar who offer goods or services or monitor the behaviour of data subjects in the EU are subject to the EU GDPR and must take into account their obligations in this context.

Until the issue of adequacy is decided by the European Commission with respect to Gibraltar, appropriate safeguards (e.B. Standard Contractual Clauses) as Gibraltar is considered a ”third country” within the meaning of Chapter V of the EU GDPR at the time of writing this report. As between England and Gibraltar, the 1968 Brussels Convention applied and not one of its successors, and this remained so despite Brexit. The charterers were domiciled in Cyprus, a Contracting State, so article 17 of the 1968 Convention became applicable. The violation of an explicit or implied notice period and the violation of a contractual disciplinary procedure are examples of grounds for an unlawful action for dismissal. The remedies available in the event of unlawful termination are damages and equitable remedies such as a statement and injunction are only granted if damages would be insufficient. These are agreements negotiated by trade unions and employers or employers` associations. They can form the basis of a person`s employment contract, provided that certain conditions are met. Anti-competitive agreements and practices are subject to the competition rules set out in Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits agreements which have as their object or effect the restriction, prevention or distortion of competition within the EU and which affect trade between EU Member States.

According to the Companies Act, the liability of shareholders of a public limited company is limited to the unpaid amount on the shares they hold. However, shareholders may be held personally liable in certain circumstances, e.B. if they give a personal guarantee and assume direct contractual liability to a third party. .