header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 March 2015 / Julian Yew
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Opinion , Family , Employment
printer mail-detail

Shared parental leave: spot the difference

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7643_julianyew

Julian Yew predicts a battle of the sexes in the courts

Shared parental leave (SPL) comes into force on 5 April 2015. The idea behind SPL is that a mother would be able to share 50 weeks of her maternity leave with the father after their child is born. Businesses who are considering operating an enhanced shared parental pay (ShPP) scheme have to evaluate if a decision to offer mothers enhanced pay (whether based on their original enhanced maternity entitlement or otherwise) but not to fathers, would amount to sex discrimination. The government has made it clear in its Employers' Technical Guide to Shared Parental Leave & Pay (December 2014) that there is no gender discrimination if men and women (for example, those in a civil partnership or same sex marriage) on paternity leave and by extension SPL, receive statutory payment only. However, if an employer operates an enhanced SPL payment policy, it would be sex discrimination if female employees receive enhanced pay but not male employees as they are on

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll