header-logo header-logo

09 February 2024 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8058 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 9 February 2024

157360
Attention, TUPE geeks! Ian Smith talks us through a transfer case with a difference, as well as the latest employment developments
  • The common law defence of novus actus interveniens.
  • Three computational issues in unfair dismissal compensation.
  • TUPE: effect of the transfer of perpetrator, not the claimant.

The current flurry of employment-related legislation continued last month, with (i) changes to immigration law to introduce a new code of practice for employers and an increase in the administrative penalty for getting it wrong from £20,000 to £60,000, as from 13 February; (ii) the removal of the ‘family-related workers’ national minimum wage exception, as from 1 April; (iii) new rules on the composition of employment tribunals (ETs) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), full commencement dependent on the senior president of tribunals; and (iv) a revised Acas code of practice on flexible working, to be brought into force by order.

Also continuing is the governmental bad habit of late production of these changes. For example, the ET/EAT changes were published

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

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