header-logo header-logo

Hard at work

rexfeatures_1518232a_4

Ian Smith pays homage to the Law of Sod

In last month’s column I was rash/stupid enough to say that the government’s employment law review seemed to have gone temporarily to sleep. This obviously aroused the ire of the gods in charge of that well known area of British jurisprudence, the Law of Sod, because we have seen this month a veritable outpouring of papers and announcements (most recently in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement) on proposed and possible reforms.
 

  • The Department for Business, Information and Skills (BIS) and the Courts and Tribunals Service published Resolving Workplace Disputes: Government response to the consultation,
  • the BIS/DWP working party on reforms to sickness absence laws reported,
  • and Underhill P has been deputed to review the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure by next spring.

This has been supplemented quite separately by an informal report for the prime minister by a ministerial adviser (Adrian Beecroft—strangely perhaps not Adam Werritty) which argues for a more root and branch approach, and in particular has spawned

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll