header-logo header-logo

11 May 2012
Issue: 7513 / Categories: Features , Civil way
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 11 May 2012

Back where we started & bankruptcy blows

BACK WHERE WE STARTED
Two years, six months, one year, two years with a small employer, two years with small and large employers and one year. Such have been the qualifying periods for making an unfair dismissal claim since the Industrial Relations Act 1971 invented the right. We have to report that the avalanche of legislation faced by employment lawyers was even more acute than we had thought (see NLJ) and that the catchingly entitled Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012 (SI 2012/989) and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012 (SI 2012/988), both of which were made on 30 March 2012, came into force on 6 April 2012. For employees who commenced employment on or after 6 April 2012, the qualifying period for an unfair dismissal claim and for the right to request a written statement of reasons for dismissal is raised to two years, which is where we came in. It is reckoned that

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll