A recent article “Blowing in the wind” published in NLJ on 13 May 2016 (166 NLJ 7698 p 8) contained an inaccurate précis of Smith v Metropolitan University. The summary should have read: “Smith v London Metropolitan University [2011] IRLR 884, [2011] All ER (D) 19 (Sep) held that a university lecturer had not made protected disclosures under s 47 B (1) of ERA 1996 because grievances that she had raised about being asked to perform duties outside the scope of her contract, in the EAT’s opinion, disclosed no breach of a legal obligation (following Cavendish Munro) and in any event were not the reason for the dismissal. However, the EAT did hold that the ET had made an error in saying that the claimant was obliged to perform such duties.” Online versions have been updated to reflect this. With apologies and thanks to Dr Smith.
17 June 2016
Correction
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch
Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice
Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr
Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team
Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown
Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team
NEWS
NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)
NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
