header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 December 2024 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8098 / Categories: Features , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 13 December 2024

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
201000
Did the Supreme Court ask for a can of worms for Christmas? Ian Smith wraps up the year in employment law with some final twists & turns
  • Check-off of union dues; discontinuance by employer.
  • Whether collective agreements can be rectified.
  • Pre-termination negotiations; the meaning of ‘improper behaviour’.

Supreme Court decisions on employment law are not exactly common, but in the October brief (NLJ, 18 October, pp9-10) we saw one on the meaning of a ‘permanent’ contractual provision (Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others [2024] UKSC 28, [2024] All ER (D) 24 (Sep)), and we now have two more. The first concerned attempts by government departments to discontinue union dues check-off arrangements, and the second dealt with whether a collective agreement can be rectified in equity. Interestingly, they both raised issues surrounding one of the oldest rules in our employment law—namely that collective agreements are not legally enforceable. In addition, an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) pronouncement

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
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll