header-logo header-logo

17 June 2016
Issue: 7703 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Correction

A recent article “Blowing in the wind” published in NLJ on 13 May 2016 (166 NLJ 7698 p 8) contained an inaccurate précis of Smith v Metropolitan University. The summary should have read: “Smith v London Metropolitan University [2011] IRLR 884, [2011] All ER (D) 19 (Sep) held that a university lecturer had not made protected disclosures under s 47 B (1) of ERA 1996 because grievances that she had raised about being asked to perform duties outside the scope of her contract, in the EAT’s opinion, disclosed no breach of a legal obligation (following Cavendish Munro) and in any event were not the reason for the dismissal. However, the EAT did hold that the ET had made an error in saying that the claimant was obliged to perform such duties.” Online versions have been updated to reflect this. With apologies and thanks to Dr Smith.

Issue: 7703 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll