header-logo header-logo

22 February 2007 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment Law Brief: 23 February 2007

The case law in the last month has demonstrated a current approach to the statutory procedures that seems to vary from the weariedly explanatory to the downright exasperated.

The Department of Trade and Industry has announced a review of these ‘rebarbative’ (© Mr Justice Underhill) procedures. Apparently the Law Society has come straight out for complete repeal. Certain of Her Majesty’s justices may not be far behind them at the barricades. However, before looking at the latest pronouncements on this, it is worth considering two potentially important cases for practitioners on an employee’s implied duty to take on different work in an emergency—with the twist that this emergency was the employee’s own sickness—and on instances where an employee may not be able to bring a statutory action for deductions from wages.

IMPLIED OBLIGATION TO DO OTHER WORK

The old case of Millbrook Furnishing Industries Ltd v McIntosh [1981] IRLR 309 is authority that there may be an implied term that employees will undertake duties outside their contracts if:
(i) the work is suitable;

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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’
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll