header-logo header-logo

Toil & trouble

04 December 2008 / Karl Deakin
Issue: 7348 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Karl Deakin reflects on another difficult year for interpreting the Working Time Regulations

The Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) (the Regulations) have provided much toil for the tribunals since their introduction in October 1998, and this year has been no exception.

The employment tribunal in Miles v Linkage Community Trust Limited (unreported at first instance) EAT/0618/07/DA, quoted by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), complained of the complexity of the Regulations stating “frankly we do not criticise any employer who [is] not able to interpret them and apply them accurately”. Anyone who has had to advise on the Regulations can probably sympathise.

Basic entitlements to rest
In addition to minimum annual leave, workers under the Regulations are entitled to:
 

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll