Protections extended for whistleblowers

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Timis and another v Osipov has brought whistleblowing to the forefront yet again

Legal lowdown: Who owns LinkedIn contacts?

What employers can do when an employee leaves the business with a valuable list of connections on a personal LinkedIn account

Iceland NMW case raises questions over benefits schemes

?Supermarket Iceland has said it plans to challenge a £21 million demand from HMRC in a case that raises questions over the enforcement of minimum wage law

Uber loses landmark gig economy ruling

?Uber has lost an appeal against a decision that its drivers should be treated as workers rather than self-employed, in a landmark gig economy ruling

Are employers responsible for what happens at Christmas parties?

Alcohol consumption, coupled with a relaxed social atmosphere, can foster situations that may not occur in the everyday office

Legal lowdown: Should musicians be compensated for hearing loss?

The Royal Opera House has announced that it will appeal the High Court’s ruling in favour of a musician who suffered ‘acoustic shock’ during rehearsals

Is veganism a protected characteristic?

A case brought by Jordi Casamitjana against the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) tests the boundaries of the Equality Act 2010

Legal-ease: Contract law

Brown and Anor v Neon Management Services identifies areas where companies may need to re-examine their employment contracts to ensure the best protection for the business

Legal lowdown: Unethical manager requests

Asking an employee to carry out something that is not necessarily illegal could fall within the category of unreasonable behaviour

Employers should be cautious following Morrisons data ruling

Legal experts have warned that employers should be cautious following the Morrisons data breach verdict?

HR issues raised by Bodyguard

As well as proving to be a massive hit, BBC drama Bodyguard highlighted a number of important workplace issues

Legal-ease: The importance of consistency

?The recent case of Doy v Clays serves as a reminder of the importance of consistency of treatment in disciplinary matters