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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll