header-logo header-logo

20 June 2013 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7565 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Ever increasing circles

hires_waterripple

Ian Smith reports on the secular, spiritual & circular nature of employment law

We have been graced this last month with two decisions by the Supreme Court on employment matters. Both concerned relatively esoteric areas of the law, but ones in which decisions at the highest level are welcome.

Church matters

Employment law sometimes seems to develop in large, lazy circles. The direction of that development in relation to the legal status of religious ministers has in recent years been towards the extension of employment status, in spite of a couple of older authorities pointing away from such status which looked increasingly anomalous (though not actually reversed). The decision of the Supreme Court (by a 4-1 majority) in President of the Methodist Conference v Preston [2013] UKSC 29 has now reversed that direction and taken us back to what originally appeared to be the case, namely that: (i) there is no rule against employment status for a minister; (ii) there is no presumption against it; but (iii) likewise it is impossible to generalise

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