The London Underground can try to obtain an injunction to prevent strike action, but only if the Union has failed to comply with specific legal requirements, making the ballot and any subsequent strike unlawful. (For example the employer is entitled to know which ‘category of worker’ is being balloted. Without this precise information the employer is unable to identify the steps he may need to take to address the employees concerns or to make alternative arrangements to enable the business to function in their absence).
All employees participating in strike action are at risk. Failing to attend work is a fundamental breach of their contract of employment, and they will not be paid for days they do not work. Employees participating in unofficial strike action may be fairly dismissed. As the dismissal arises out of a breach of the employees contract they will not be entitled to notice pay. Any employee who does not work and is involved in ‘unofficial’ union action may be dismissed, even if attending meetings on their day off, or not working through fear of reprisals.
Dismissal is only automatically unfair if the employee is dismissed within 12 weeks of participating in official strike action, or the employee is absent for specific statutory or family reasons, or has been subjected to ‘selective treatment’.
Employment businesses may not provide agency workers to the employer to enable the provision of services to continue
Read more about Hart Brown's employment department
Wednesday 25 August 2010
Monday 23 August 2010
Legal aid clinical negligence work
The personal injury and clinical negligence team are delighted to confirm that their Tender for legal aid clinical negligence work has been successful.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC) who currently run legal aid notified the Team this morning to confirm the award of the Tender.
This will allow Hart Brown to continue providing legal aid services to clients who are eligible for legal aid although the Team also undertakes work for clients on a No Win No Fee basis and also under any legal expenses insurance a client may have plus traditional privately funded work.
Hart Brown has been able to offer legal aid to its clinical negligence clients who are financially eligible for many years and therefore it is a very pleasing to be able to continue to do that work where we have had some great successes most recently winning two case for severely brain injured clients which would on a lump sum basis amount to £10 million if put together.
Read more about Hart Brown's Clinical Negligence Department.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC) who currently run legal aid notified the Team this morning to confirm the award of the Tender.
This will allow Hart Brown to continue providing legal aid services to clients who are eligible for legal aid although the Team also undertakes work for clients on a No Win No Fee basis and also under any legal expenses insurance a client may have plus traditional privately funded work.
Hart Brown has been able to offer legal aid to its clinical negligence clients who are financially eligible for many years and therefore it is a very pleasing to be able to continue to do that work where we have had some great successes most recently winning two case for severely brain injured clients which would on a lump sum basis amount to £10 million if put together.
Read more about Hart Brown's Clinical Negligence Department.
Friday 13 August 2010
AvMA (Action against Medical Accidents) report on implementation of patient safety alerts
As some of you may have heard on the Today programme this morning the current situation in relation to patient safety alerts is nothing short of scandalous. Patient safety alerts are issued by the National Patient Safety agency to health trusts about problems that repeatedly result in injury or even death to patients which could have been avoided. Under the alerts a set of actions needs to be completed by a set deadline.
Although problems with this system were identified in an earlier report from AvMA in February 2010 as at 7 June 2010 63% of health trusts had failed to comply with at least one alert and 29 trusts had not complied with 10 or more alerts.
In relation to an alert issued on the 20 May 2004 there were still 6 instances of it not being complied with. Since a number of trusts have proved themselves capable of 100% compliance with patient safety alerts (and they are clearly to be congratulated for this) what is happening to the trusts in default? One trust for example has 23 alerts outstanding.
AvMA’s report highlights not only the problems with individual trust but with the whole system of monitoring and regulating compliance with these alerts.
For anyone with an interest in this area a full report can be found at www.avma.org.uk
To find out more about how Hart Brown can help with a clinical negligence claim, visit our website
Although problems with this system were identified in an earlier report from AvMA in February 2010 as at 7 June 2010 63% of health trusts had failed to comply with at least one alert and 29 trusts had not complied with 10 or more alerts.
In relation to an alert issued on the 20 May 2004 there were still 6 instances of it not being complied with. Since a number of trusts have proved themselves capable of 100% compliance with patient safety alerts (and they are clearly to be congratulated for this) what is happening to the trusts in default? One trust for example has 23 alerts outstanding.
AvMA’s report highlights not only the problems with individual trust but with the whole system of monitoring and regulating compliance with these alerts.
For anyone with an interest in this area a full report can be found at www.avma.org.uk
To find out more about how Hart Brown can help with a clinical negligence claim, visit our website
How will a change in retirement age affect businesses?
It is worth considering the impact of the removal of the default retirement age on companies and individuals. If someone at or approaching 65 is underperforming then companies will be more inclined to follow capability procedures, and terminate for lack of capacity, whereas before they might have been prepared to wait until they could lawfully issue notice of retirement.
Companies may also ensure a retirement age is included in their contracts of employment. Alternatively, where the above does not apply, individuals who may have been looking forward to retiring at 65, may now feel morally compelled to work longer.
Removal of the default retirement age could result in increased litigation. Older people may challenge contractual retirement ages, believe they have been unfairly targeted for capability proceedings, or feel that termination for any other reason, including redundancy, is in fact age discrimination and an alternative means of terminating employment when they can no longer be forced to retire at 65. (We know that age discrimination exists, hence the difficulty for older workers seeking re-employment- removing the default retirement age will not remove the underlying problem).
Read more about Hart Brown's Employment department.
Companies may also ensure a retirement age is included in their contracts of employment. Alternatively, where the above does not apply, individuals who may have been looking forward to retiring at 65, may now feel morally compelled to work longer.
Removal of the default retirement age could result in increased litigation. Older people may challenge contractual retirement ages, believe they have been unfairly targeted for capability proceedings, or feel that termination for any other reason, including redundancy, is in fact age discrimination and an alternative means of terminating employment when they can no longer be forced to retire at 65. (We know that age discrimination exists, hence the difficulty for older workers seeking re-employment- removing the default retirement age will not remove the underlying problem).
Read more about Hart Brown's Employment department.
Tuesday 10 August 2010
BBC - Panorama - R.I.P off - further comment
Last nights episode of Panorama has created a big buzz in our trust department at Hart Brown, the Head of our Trusts and Investments department Paul Tobias commented:
You need to be of sound mind to make a will. After the Panorama report on will writers last night, I question whether anyone using a will writer can be regarded as of sound mind. For something as important as your will, the only sensible thing to do is to use solicitors who specialise in advising on and drafting wills. Surely it is better to use highly regulated (and insured) professionals rather than taking the risk of getting involved with unregulated unqualified will writers?
Read more about Hart Brown's Trusts section here
You need to be of sound mind to make a will. After the Panorama report on will writers last night, I question whether anyone using a will writer can be regarded as of sound mind. For something as important as your will, the only sensible thing to do is to use solicitors who specialise in advising on and drafting wills. Surely it is better to use highly regulated (and insured) professionals rather than taking the risk of getting involved with unregulated unqualified will writers?
Read more about Hart Brown's Trusts section here
BBC - Panorama - R.I.P off
I have often warned people about the lack of regulation among will writers and the fact that they are not required to have any qualifications at all. However, the BBC’s Panorama programme entitled “R.I.P. Off” was a very sobering view of the unregulated legal services that are being marketed. The programme highlighted hidden fees, extremely poor administration of estates, theft and fraud, but I would say that, wouldn’t I? I’m a solicitor. In order to become a solicitor, you train for a total of 6 years, you are governed by the Law Society and if after that something goes wrong, there is the Solicitors Compensation Fund and indemnity insurance to turn to.
It appears there are two tiers of advice available:
1. Solicitors with the training and regulation
2. A steadily growing industry of unqualified and unregulated will writers and probate service providers.
All of the assets that you have worked for and built up over your life are governed by your will. It is a document which is too important not to get absolutely right. Or is my view tainted because I am a solicitor? Perhaps there are those who think that there should be less regulation in the legal world and that it should be the choice of the individual as to whether they choose to use the services of a will writer.
I would be interested to hear your views.
To read more about this author - Shaun Parry-Jones, click here
It appears there are two tiers of advice available:
1. Solicitors with the training and regulation
2. A steadily growing industry of unqualified and unregulated will writers and probate service providers.
All of the assets that you have worked for and built up over your life are governed by your will. It is a document which is too important not to get absolutely right. Or is my view tainted because I am a solicitor? Perhaps there are those who think that there should be less regulation in the legal world and that it should be the choice of the individual as to whether they choose to use the services of a will writer.
I would be interested to hear your views.
To read more about this author - Shaun Parry-Jones, click here
Friday 6 August 2010
A marriage made in hell?
The average cost of a modern wedding exceeds £20,000.00. Often, couples borrow that money and then start their married life in debt. Does this put more pressure on a marriage in its early stages? Would that money be better utilised towards the couple’s future together?
Are couples placing more emphasis on the wedding day rather than the marriage that will follow? Do couples that marry on a ‘whim’ realise the financial and other implications should that marriage break down? Not only that, but the cost of the divorce itself and the resolution of the financial issues? Is enough serious thought given to the meaning of what a marriage is, not just in the emotional sense, but in a legal and financial sense?
Has the morality gone out of weddings, and are the religious connotations disappearing as more couples opt for civil ceremonies?
It would seem that the media and the current ‘celebrity culture’ are having a huge impact on weddings. Do TV programmes such as “Four Weddings” and “Don’t tell the bride” detract from a wedding’s true meaning?
Read the bbc news article here
Read more about Hart Brown's family department
Are couples placing more emphasis on the wedding day rather than the marriage that will follow? Do couples that marry on a ‘whim’ realise the financial and other implications should that marriage break down? Not only that, but the cost of the divorce itself and the resolution of the financial issues? Is enough serious thought given to the meaning of what a marriage is, not just in the emotional sense, but in a legal and financial sense?
Has the morality gone out of weddings, and are the religious connotations disappearing as more couples opt for civil ceremonies?
It would seem that the media and the current ‘celebrity culture’ are having a huge impact on weddings. Do TV programmes such as “Four Weddings” and “Don’t tell the bride” detract from a wedding’s true meaning?
Read the bbc news article here
Read more about Hart Brown's family department
Thursday 5 August 2010
Ian Huntley
So much outrage about whether Ian Huntley should recover compensation if the prison service has not protected him properly.
Does everyone deserve to be protected –no matter what they have done or should some people be thrown to the lions? Do criminals have any rights? Should criminals be entitled to compensation?
Or should the question be what should happen to compensation a criminal receives? Should they start paying for their keep in prison on a daily basis? Should their victims recover compensation? In fact should any criminal who has money or comes into money by whatever means be forced to pay for their upkeep in prison at least until their private funds run out?
Some interesting questions.
What do you think?
Read the full story here
www.hartbrown.co.uk
Does everyone deserve to be protected –no matter what they have done or should some people be thrown to the lions? Do criminals have any rights? Should criminals be entitled to compensation?
Or should the question be what should happen to compensation a criminal receives? Should they start paying for their keep in prison on a daily basis? Should their victims recover compensation? In fact should any criminal who has money or comes into money by whatever means be forced to pay for their upkeep in prison at least until their private funds run out?
Some interesting questions.
What do you think?
Read the full story here
www.hartbrown.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)