header-logo header-logo

Employment Law Brief: 23 February 2007

22 February 2007 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The case law in the last month has demonstrated a current approach to the statutory procedures that seems to vary from the weariedly explanatory to the downright exasperated.

The Department of Trade and Industry has announced a review of these ‘rebarbative’ (© Mr Justice Underhill) procedures. Apparently the Law Society has come straight out for complete repeal. Certain of Her Majesty’s justices may not be far behind them at the barricades. However, before looking at the latest pronouncements on this, it is worth considering two potentially important cases for practitioners on an employee’s implied duty to take on different work in an emergency—with the twist that this emergency was the employee’s own sickness—and on instances where an employee may not be able to bring a statutory action for deductions from wages.

IMPLIED OBLIGATION TO DO OTHER WORK

The old case of Millbrook Furnishing Industries Ltd v McIntosh [1981] IRLR 309 is authority that there may be an implied term that employees will undertake duties outside their contracts if:
(i) the work is suitable;

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: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

Francis Ho, Charles Russell Speechlys partner, was recently appointed chair of the Construction Law Committee of the City of London Law Society. He discusses the challenges of learning to lead, the importance of professional ethics, and the power of the written word, withNLJ

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
back-to-top-scroll