header-logo header-logo

15 January 2009
Issue: 7352 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Law reports: Worker-Definition of worker- Judicial office holders

O’Brien v Department for Constitutional Affairs, [2008] EWCA Civ 1448, [2008] All ER (D) 224 (Dec)

Recorders are part-time judges in the Crown or County Courts. Most are in full-time practice as barristers or solicitors. Some have left practice and hold full-time positions as, for example, district judges. The claimant had been a part-time recorder until March 2005. He and a number of other part-time judicial office holders brought proceedings before the employment trial, claiming protection against discrimination pursuant to the Regulations, which were intended to implement the Part-time Workers Framework Directive 97/81/EC. Regulation 17 provided that they did not apply to any individual in his capacity “as a holder of judicial office if he is remunerated on a daily fee-paid basis”. The claimant submitted that reg 17 had to be disapplied because the direct effect of the Directive did not permit a provision of that kind.

The tribunal considered that the claim had been brought out of time, but that it would be just and equitable to extend time. The

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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
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?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
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
back-to-top-scroll