header-logo header-logo

11 August 2017 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 11 August 2017

07_smith

Ian Smith returns to share some tales of whistleblowing, compensation & loss

  • Undone by an oral contract.
  • Whistleblowing: public or private interest?
  • Compensation for non-pecuniary loss: applying the Simmons v Castle uprating.

A couple of weeks ago I went out on the lash with the editor of this august journal, Jan Miller. After a night on triple vodkas with Special Brew chasers, I distinctly remember her saying that she would love to put my fee for the ‘Employment Law Brief’ up to £15m per brief. I, of course, agreed and thought myself well satisfied by this obviously legally binding variation of my existing agreement; knowing that Jan is a gentleman, I did not ask for it in writing. Shortly afterwards, I passed out just as Jan was going on to another pub, muttering something that sounded suspiciously like ‘Lightweight!’.

Some time later, and restored to health, I received the payment for the last brief and was surprised to see that it remained unchanged (a book token for £2.75, redeemable only

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll