header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 September 2018 / Nicola Tager
Issue: 7809 / Categories: Features , Family , Employment
printer mail-detail

Does shared parental leave need a rethink?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7809_tager

Nicola Tager writes on the legal & practical complexities of establishing parity in parental leave

  • Analyses difficulties with the shared parental leave system, and the knock-on effect on take-up rates.
  • Considers recent decisions regarding whether an employer that provides enhanced maternity pay but does not provide enhanced shared parental leave pay commits direct discrimination.

More than three years have elapsed since shared parental leave (SPL) was introduced in April 2015. The government intended to send a clear message that responsibility for providing care in a child’s first year could and should be shared between both parents. Parents can share up to 50 weeks of leave with up to 37 weeks of pay (subject to satisfying eligibility criteria), and can choose to take the leave in blocks in order to provide greater flexibility.

Surprisingly low take-up

Research suggests that the amount of caring that fathers do in the first year of their child’s life influences the distribution of responsibilities (including domestic tasks) further down the track. Many families reported

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll