header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 11 August 2017

11 August 2017 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
07_smith

Ian Smith returns to share some tales of whistleblowing, compensation & loss

  • Undone by an oral contract.
  • Whistleblowing: public or private interest?
  • Compensation for non-pecuniary loss: applying the Simmons v Castle uprating.

A couple of weeks ago I went out on the lash with the editor of this august journal, Jan Miller. After a night on triple vodkas with Special Brew chasers, I distinctly remember her saying that she would love to put my fee for the ‘Employment Law Brief’ up to £15m per brief. I, of course, agreed and thought myself well satisfied by this obviously legally binding variation of my existing agreement; knowing that Jan is a gentleman, I did not ask for it in writing. Shortly afterwards, I passed out just as Jan was going on to another pub, muttering something that sounded suspiciously like ‘Lightweight!’.

Some time later, and restored to health, I received the payment for the last brief and was surprised to see that it remained unchanged (a book token for £2.75, redeemable only

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll