header-logo header-logo

13 September 2007
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

NO PENSION RIGHTS

In brief

Part-time fee-paid tribunal chairmen are not workers and are not entitled to a pension, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held. The EAT ruled in Christie v Department for Constitutional Affairs and another that Ronald Christie was excluded from pension rights by the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (SI 2000/1551). Regulation 12 made those regulations applicable to workers in Crown employment. However, reg 17 excluded any individual in his capacity as the holder of a judicial office if he was remunerated on a daily fee-paid basis.

Issue: 7288 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

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