When a concern about a doctor is also being considered by the GMC and/or the police/counterfraud, should internal proceedings be put on hold pending the outcome of the regulatory/criminal proceedings?

Given the Government’s plans for employment law reform, we highlight some key changes and appeal court decisions to look out for in 2025.

In episode 3 of the MHPS podcast series the conversation turns to parallel proceedings and the circumstances in which an MHPS can proceed alongside concurrent criminal or regulatory proceedings.

Supreme Court that significantly clarifies the correct interpretation of Section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

Laura and Mark outline the what, when and why of disclosure obligations in an MHPS process. They will consider how this applies in a number of scenarios and offer practical tips for anyone having to contend with disclosure obligations in an MHPS process.

On 26 November 2024, the Secretary of State for the DHSC, Wes Streeting, announced the launch of a consultation (Leading the NHS: proposals to regulate NHS managers).

To mark the anniversary of the introduction of MHPS in 2003, Laura Horovitz, Legal Director in the Employment and Pensions Division, has teamed up with special guest, Mark Sutton KC from Old Square Chambers, to record a podcast series on MHPS.

The Government has published details of its plans for reform of employment rights. Although a lot of detail is still to be confirmed, there are steps that employers can take now to prepare and mitigate the effects of the biggest reform of employment law.

The Government made a number of pension–related announcements in the Budget today. Below we summarise some of the main changes to pensions.

In this article, we summarise the key changes contained in the Employment Rights Bill (the Bill) and what to expect from the Government’s longer term plans for employment law reform.

On 26 October 2024, the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 (the Act) comes into force. The Act introduces a new preventative duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their workers and employees.

In Tesco v USDAW and others, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to overturn the High Court’s decision to impose a permanent injunction against Tesco to prevent it from ‘firing and rehiring’ a group of staff.