header-logo header-logo

15 July 2010 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7426 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Holding court

employment_1_4

Recent case law demonstrates that Westminster, not the courts, will be wielding the axe on pay-offs & bonuses, says Ian Smith

As part of the much discussed economic retrenchment, there has been talk of measures to curb excessive pay-outs in the public sector and bonuses in the private sector. One question for employment lawyers has been whether the courts might make any contribution here by taking a less generous view of individual rights under such schemes.

However, the two cases considered this month strongly suggest that this is not going to be the case, thus putting the ball firmly back into the government’s court if moves are to be made in such a direction. The first shows a much more restrictive approach by the Court of Appeal to the application of public law concepts such as ultra vires to agreements to pay off staff, and the second shows a continuation of the courts’ existing powers to ensure that employees receive the bonuses to which they are contractually entitled, strongly suggesting that any fundamental changes to

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

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll