Ignorance of the law is no defence
By Melissa Paz
As every lawyer knows, ignorance of the law is no defence. In the past week or so, I have found myself irritated by the inability of the press and politicians to refer to employment law without making a hash of it. In fact, their tendency to misunderstand the law (deliberately or otherwise) is not peculiar to the employment law field, but as an employment lawyer that is what riles me most.
Last week, one key untruth was spouted repeatedly about the Sharon Shoesmith settlement. However you feel about this emotive case, it is simply wrong to say that her reported £600,000 settlement sum was for ‘unfair dismissal’.
The fact is that Ms Shoesmith won a judicial review application against the secretary of state and the London Borough of Haringey — not an unfair dismissal claim. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the direction of the then secretary of state, Ed Balls, to remove Ms Shoesmith from office — as announced at the now infamous press conference — was unlawful. This direction was followed by a rushed disciplinary process carried out by her employer, Haringey, where the outcome was a fait accompli…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Withers briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Withers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Withers
In a two-part analysis, Withers compared how different jurisdictions dealt with spousal maintenance.
The court has emphasised that sharing stops on divorce — so logic dictates that with the marriage over, sharing has no place in the assessment of maintenance.
Analysis from The Lawyer
A merged Withers and Speechly Bircham would have scaled The Lawyer’s UK 200 with a turnover of about £170m, and created one of the world’s largest specialist private client teams. So what went wrong?