<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Territorial jurisdiction</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/territorial-jurisdiction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/territorial-jurisdiction/</link>
	<description>Hamilton House, 1 Temple Avenue, London, EC4Y 0HA. Tel: 020 7489 2165</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:55:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duncombe v Secretary of State &#124; Employment Law Advocates</title>
		<link>http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/territorial-jurisdiction/#comment-9036</link>
		<dc:creator>Duncombe v Secretary of State &#124; Employment Law Advocates</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.employmentlawadvocates.com/?p=2895#comment-9036</guid>
		<description>[...] and the Court of Appeal, the dominant issue was one of territorial jurisdiction, as discussed here. However, in the recent ruling made by the Supreme Court, the Secretary of State for Children, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and the Court of Appeal, the dominant issue was one of territorial jurisdiction, as discussed here. However, in the recent ruling made by the Supreme Court, the Secretary of State for Children, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

