header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 December 2016 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 15 December 2016

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7727_smith

Ian Smith finds clarity in recent employment cases
  • What is meant by an employer “refusing” a statutory break?
  • How should a tribunal deal with a final warning that is of dubious validity?
  • How should a tribunal deal with a redundancy conducted without acceptable consultation?
  • What exactly is the burden of proof on the employer?

The four cases appearing in this month’s collection of random thoughts provide clear answers to four specific questions well known to employment lawyers. The first arises in the context of working time law—what is meant by an employer “refusing” a statutory break? The next two are questions arising in fairly standard tribunal proceedings for dismissal—how should a tribunal deal with (i) a final warning that is of dubious validity, and (ii) a redundancy conducted without acceptable consultation? The fourth question is specific to the statutory action for detriment short of dismissal—what exactly is the burden of proof on the employer?

When does an employer “refuse” a statutory break?

Regulation 30(1) of the Working Time Regulations

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