header-logo header-logo

02 June 2017
Issue: 7748 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

Hartley and others v King Edward VI College [2017] UKSC 39, [2017] All ER (D) 146 (May)

The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellants’ appeal, held that the correct interpretation of ‘accruing from day to day’ within s 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 meant accruing calendar day by calendar day and that that principle could not be excluded in the present case upon the correct interpretation of the relevant employment contracts. The appellants had participated in one day or lawful strike action and had a deduction of their salary at a rate of 1/260 of their annual salary. It was held that that had been wrong and the rate ought to have been a deduction of 1/365 of their annual salary.

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

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