header-logo header-logo

THIN ICE

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

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

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 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
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll