header-logo header-logo

18 June 2009
Issue: 7374 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Employment
printer mail-detail

Local authority receives depressing decision

A local authority has lost its £1m claim against a chief executive who they claimed failed to disclose previous stress-related illnesses in her job application.

A local authority has lost its £1m claim against a chief executive who they claimed failed to disclose previous stress-related illnesses in her job application.

Cheltenham Borough Council sued its former employee, Christine Laird, for making fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations in a job application, by not disclosing she had previously suffered depression.
However, Mr Justice Hamblen dismissed the application, noting that Laird had correctly filled out the council’s medical questionnaire, which asked: “Do you have either a physical and/or mental impairment?”
Hamblen J said: “She did not have an ongoing depressive disorder...A reasonable person in Mrs Laird’s position at the material time would not regard herself as having a physical or mental impairment.”

Hamblen J rejected a counterclaim for damages by Laird to reflect the value of the work she did for the council during her tenure.

Andrew North, chief executive of the council, is consulting with group leaders and legal advisers on whether or not to appeal the ruling.
A decision will be made early next week.

Issue: 7374 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Employment
printer mail-details

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? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll