header-logo header-logo

25 July 2013 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7570 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Eye on employment

150654799

It’s been a big month in the world of employment law, notes Ian Smith

The last month has seen major legislative changes, with several provisions of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 coming into force, the issuing of the new Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (to come into force on 29 July) and the publication of a Deregulation Bill. It has to be said that the portents for the latter are hopefully to be better than the attempt at such legislation in the mid-1990s when an empowering Act only led to one deregulation order, which in relation to employment law only repealed two provisions—the Home Work (Lampshades) Order 1929 and the Horizontal Milling Machines (Amendment) Regulations 1934, both of which had of course been holding British industry back for years. Against such a backdrop it might be expected that case law would seem relatively sidelined, but the three cases below each make important contributions to the law in their areas.

Wide discretion for surveillance

Issues of covert surveillance can be seen regularly

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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