header-logo header-logo

05 February 2009
Issue: 7355 / Categories: Opinion , Employment
printer mail-detail

Benefit matters

How relevant are benefits payments to employment tribunal cases? Michael Salter & Chris Bryden report

The government announced it is determined to move more than one million people off benefits. However, the prevailing economic situation, which has resulted in the demise of such large chains as Woolworths, Adams and Zavvi, as well as the large number of small businesses which go under everyday, may mean that the reversal of reliance on benefits hoped for by the government is unachievable, and is likely in fact to result in an increase in the number of people claiming benefits.

The quantum of benefits received by a claimant in an employment tribunal claim is relevant to the determination of the amount of any award made, as benefits will be taken into account. When dealing with compensation for unfair dismissal, the calculation of the basic award should be relatively uncontroversial and is merely a matter of mathematics. However, more difficulties arise when assessing the compensatory award. Given the likely rise in the number of claims involving dismissal and the lack of prospects for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll