Two solicitors join Winckworth Sherwood
Winckworth Sherwood has appointed solicitors James Lynas and Hazel Anderson to the partnership. The law firm now has a total of 42 partners and 140 fee-earning staff.
Lynas has specialised in employment law since 1995, with a particular focus on dealing with high-profile contentious disputes in the education sector — including illegally paid head teachers, child protection allegations, procurement fraud, covert recording, whistleblowing allegations and the revocation of immigration status — revising the scope of schools’ HR policies to make them less bureaucratic and advising on the TUPE aspects of more than 200 academy conversions.
He brings to his practice his five years’ experience as a chair of governors of an inner-city secondary school and is presently a governor of the Royal Hospital School in Suffolk.
Lynas has been the solicitor to the Pathology Delivery Board for four years, devising the new disciplinary rules of the Home Secretary’s Register of Forensic Pathologists and conducting two removal hearings.
Anderson specialises in infrastructure planning work, particularly the authorisation of railway, tram and harbour schemes. This includes drafting the legislation and advising on all aspects including consultation, planning and compulsory purchase and compensation.
A particular focus of her work to date has been advising on Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Directive issues for major projects. She negotiates undertakings, agreements and protective provisions to address objector concerns and has also acted for a number of statutory undertakers in opposition to infrastructure schemes.
Anderson’s recent work on the High Speed 2 (HS2) hybrid bill included advising on consultation and Environmental Impact Assessment- and Habitats-related issues. She also worked on the Crossrail Act 2008 and its implementation.
News from Winckworth Sherwood
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Winckworth Sherwood
Obesity is estimated to affect around one in four UK adults. The EU advocate-general’s recent non-binding opinion may give rise to significant implications for employers.
The fact that an employee is on sick leave is a relevant consideration when determining whether a delay in resigning would prevent a claim for constructive dismissal.