header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 June 2015 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 25 June 2015

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7658_smith

It’s all in a day’s work for Ian Smith as he reviews the latest employment decisions

It could well be argued that the one thing you should never do in employment law is to ask a simple question—the chances of a simple answer tend to be disappearingly small. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Hartley v King Edward VI College [2015] EWCA Civ 455, [2015] All ER (D) 179 (May) given by Elias LJ, shows this nicely.

Hartley v King Edward VI College

The apparently simple question was this—if a salaried employee strikes for a day, how much pay does he or she forfeit? The apparently simple answer is “a day’s pay”, but how is that to be calculated? Here, the college hit by strike action deducted 1/260th of the annual salary (ie a “working days” calculation), on the basis that the contract provided for that number of days’ “directed” work per annum. The union argued that it should only be 1/365th of annual salary (ie a “calendar days” calculation). The

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
Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

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