header-logo header-logo

19 June 2008
Issue: 7326 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Insurance / reinsurance , Employment
printer mail-detail

Insurance costs

In brief

Employers who fail to provide health insurance for workers over 65 because of high expense could be liable for age discrimination claims. Geraldine Elliot, head of employment at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, says: “Although treating staff differently on the basis of their age can be justified under age discrimination legislation, employers can only do so to pursue a legitimate aim and if the means it is using are proportionate.” Although firms may be able to justify not providing health cover due to expense, they should be aware of age discrimination liabilities. Elliot suggests companies invest in self-funding treatment or selfinsuring PHI cover for workers to protect themselves from discrimination claims.
 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll