header-logo header-logo

09 August 2007
Issue: 7285 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Regulatory , Employment
printer mail-detail

THIN ICE

In brief

A penalty for failing to comply with the Information and Consultation of Employee Regulations 2004 (ICE regulations) has for the first time been awarded by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In Amicus v Macmillan Publishers Ltd the EAT concluded that Macmillan’s failure to hold a ballot breached the ICE regulations, which require larger employers to ensure that employees are informed and consulted. The EAT concluded that “it must have been plain, reading the legislation, that the relevant provisions were being ignored at almost every stage”. No adequate reasons were given for failing to comply with the obligations and a £55,000 penalty was imposed.

Issue: 7285 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Regulatory , 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