header-logo header-logo

11 May 2012
Issue: 7513 / Categories: Features , Civil way
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 11 May 2012

Back where we started & bankruptcy blows

BACK WHERE WE STARTED
Two years, six months, one year, two years with a small employer, two years with small and large employers and one year. Such have been the qualifying periods for making an unfair dismissal claim since the Industrial Relations Act 1971 invented the right. We have to report that the avalanche of legislation faced by employment lawyers was even more acute than we had thought (see NLJ) and that the catchingly entitled Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012 (SI 2012/989) and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012 (SI 2012/988), both of which were made on 30 March 2012, came into force on 6 April 2012. For employees who commenced employment on or after 6 April 2012, the qualifying period for an unfair dismissal claim and for the right to request a written statement of reasons for dismissal is raised to two years, which is where we came in. It is reckoned that the change will save the private sector an annual £4.7m

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll