header-logo header-logo

01 May 2015 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7650 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

An officer and an…employee?

nlj_may_1_dobson

Although all local authority employees are officers, are all authority officers necessarily employees, asks Nicholas Dobson

All local authority employees are officers. But do all officers have to be employees? The issue is important not least since statute requires relevant authorities (per s 21(1)(a)-(k) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) to designate “one of their officers” as “monitoring officer”. This position has personal responsibility for specified functions designed to secure the authority’s corporate legal propriety.

But nowadays there are many permutations and combinations of local government legal practice. One chief legal officer in a local authority can often be responsible for the legal propriety and well-being of two or more councils. How does this fit into the statutory scheme of things? Fortunately a May 2010 decision of HH Judge Grenfell in the High Court in Leeds brought some clarity to a rather cloudy statutory picture, albeit that the matter concerned a chief finance officer rather than a monitoring officer.

The case was Pinfold North Ltd v. Humberside Fire Authority [2010]

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll