header-logo header-logo

22 June 2017 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7751 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 22 June 2017

nlj_7751_ian_smith

Ian Smith lets the Supreme Court & the Court of Appeal take centre stage in matters of statutory interpretation

  • Deducting pay for strike days.
  • Doctor in training has whistleblowing protection.
  • Whistleblowing: was the disclosure ‘protected’?

Even a cursory glance at this column (and who is to say it’s worth any more?) shows just how dominant the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is in the general, every day development of employment law. Unusually, this last month, however, we have had a decision of the Supreme Court and two of the Court of Appeal on three precise but important points of statutory interpretation: (1) how do you apportion an annual salary to establish a daily rate of pay?; (2) when is a doctor in training given protection as a whistle blower?; and (3) in a whistleblowing dismissal case, how do you decide if the disclosure in question was a ‘protected’ one?

Working days or calendar days?

Hartley v King Edward VI College [2017] UKSC 39 is an important and well known

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