header-logo header-logo

08 August 2013 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7572 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Hard work

rexfeatures_2228692f

The courts have performed some important employment work recently, notes Ian Smith

It is sometimes said that senior civil servants should not be allowed near sharp-pointed scissors. It could certainly be argued at the end of July that they should not be let loose near important Regulations that employment lawyers need to know about. After trumpeting that much new law was due to come into force on 29 July, one set of Regulations was not published until the following day and another until even later. Apparently, with the former they had phrased commencement in terms of “the day after it is made” (a modern tendency), which of course meant it had to be “made” on 28 July (even if not published to us plebs); this in turn means that we at the sharp end at least had the satisfaction of knowing that it had ruined some mandarin’s Sunday.

As far as case law is concerned, two important decisions are covered here—one settling a difficult point of TUPE law (only one? Damn) but this time largely

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

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll