header-logo header-logo

19 April 2018 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7789 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 19 April 2018

nlj_7789_smith

Ian Smith celebrates an anniversary & is proof that quality never goes out of fashion

  • The employment lawyers’ mantra: in employment there may simply be no definitive answer.
  • If an example is wanted, perhaps TUPE will suffice, where in advising a client you soon run out of law and start looking for a workable answer that is least likely to incur legal liability.

This month’s Brief constitutes something of a personal milestone, as it is my 200th column. To mark this, I thought it might be of interest to look back to the very first column and then at the 100th, to look for areas of development or alternatively continuity in this crazy subject of employment law. One of the problems of looking back is the frequent difficulty of combining a realisation of just how far we have come in a short time (including in this period the internet revolution and its effects on legal matters) with the opposite factor of how many problems and issues remain remarkably immutable. At

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
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
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?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
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
back-to-top-scroll