The research conducted by manufacturers’ organisation EEF and health insurer Westfield Health also found that a small proportion of employers found the fit note less helpful than its predecessor the sick note.

A fit note indicates whether a doctor believes a person is ‘not fit for work’ or ‘may be fit for work’.

Not fit for work – A doctor will choose this option when they believe a person’s health condition will prevent them from working for a given period.

May be fit for work – A doctor will select this option when they believe a person may be able to return to work while they recover from their injury or illness with help from their employer. This is likely to include comments from the doctor to the employer indicating how the person is affected by the condition and, if appropriate, if there is anything they can do to support them in their return to work. This may include:

-          A phased return to work

-          Altered hours

-          Amended duties

-          Changes to the person’s workplace

In light of the findings of the report, EEF is urging the Government to implement the recommendations of the Frost/Black review into sickness absence, including further training for GPs. According to the review, only 3,500 of the 40,000 GPs working in the UK have received some form of training regarding the use of fit notes.

For information on Holmes  & Hills’ flexbile employment law services for employers, click here.

Following the revelations that industrial grade silicone had been used in breast implants given to tens of thousands of women across the country, Health Minister Lord Howe conducted a report to look at whether the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) – the UK’s health regulator – and the Department for Health acted appropriately before and after details of problems arose.

The report emphasises the importance of ensuring the regulator and Department for Health promptly communicate full, clear and accurate information that is accessible to those likely to be affected.

As regulator the MHRA is tasked with monitoring incidents reported to it, ensuring full investigations are undertaken and taking any action that it deems necessary. Whilst the report found the regulator did this, it recommends improvements need to be made in how it communicates such information with the public. Lord Howe also argued the regulator needed to steps to enable it to identify problems earlier.

“…serious lessons must be learned from this scandal. The MHRA needs to look at how it gathers evidence so it is able to identify problems early. It needs to better analyse reports about higher risk medical devices. And it needs to improve the way it communicates with the public.”

In his report Lord Howe identified that there were clear issues with the way problems were reported to the regulator and noted some problems not being reported at all.

With the MHRA’s reputation having taken a knock due to the high levels of press coverage that surrounded the PIP breast implant scandal, the Health Minister was keen to reinstate public confidence in the regulator and its ability to protect the public:

“This report won’t repair the distress caused to women who have PIP implants, but it should give them and the public reassurance that we have identified the lessons; that we will take all steps to act on them; and that, should something like this happen again, our systems for dealing with it will be stronger.”

 Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director, is currently undertaking a separate review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions in light of the ever increasing number of cosmetic surgery procedures being undertaken.

If you have PIP breast implants and are concerned, call Holmes & Hills Solicitors on 01376 320456. Our specialist solicitors will advise you on:

•  Whether any pain or discomfort you have may be linked to your PIP implant
•  Who you should approach if you believe you require medical attention in relation to breast implants
• How you can make claim for compensation

For further information on Holmes & Hills’ cosmetic surgery compensation services, see our Cosmetic Surgery Compensation page.

Whilst this does suggest a favourable change in attitudes towards paternity leave in the workplace, amongst both employers and male employees, there are still a significant number of men who choose not to take paternity leave. As a result there is still great disparity between the number of men and women taking leave in the weeks following the birth of a child. In the year to March 2010, 602,000 women received Statutory Maternity Pay, over three times as many as the number of men for the same period.

A further finding of the report shows there was a 23% increase in the amount of Statutory Paternity paid out in the year to March 2010, from £35million to £43million. This suggests that as well as an increase in the number of men taking paternity leave, there has also been an increase in the amount of paternity leave each individual is taking.

Whilst the government is keen to encourage fathers to take advantage of their entitlement to paternity leave, many employers have spoken out against the introduction of any further measures to encourage more men to exercise this right, fearing these will add to red tape and hinder management of staffing levels.

In April of last year the Government extended the period men were able to claim Statutory Maternity Pay up to 26 weeks where their partner has returned to work. The aim of the increase is to allow parents to split their leave entitlement as best suits their circumstances. It is expected that this will lead to further increases both in the number of men taking paternity leave and the length of paternity leave being taken.

For information on Holmes & Hills flexible employment law services for employers, see our Employment Law for business pages.

Mr Seldon was a partner at a law firm which had a policy of retiring partners at the age 65. In line with this policy Mr Seldon was compulsorily retired when he reached this age, however, Mr Seldon claimed this amounted to direct age discrimination.

The subsequent employment tribunal found that the firm had three aims in using a compulsory retirement age:

• To ensure younger members of staff were given the opportunity of partnership so as to prevent them leaving the firm.
• To facilitate the planning of the partnership and workforce across departments by having long-term expectations of when vacancies will arise.
• To limit the need to expel partners due to poor performance and avoid unseemly debates about performance.

For a compulsory retirement age to be lawful, the aims of the employer’s policy must be legitimate for the purpose of justifying it. Such a legitimate aim must also relate to a social policy objective – such as promoting employment opportunities across generations – rather than just an objective of the business, such as maximising profit or competitiveness.   

A second requirement is that the means of achieving those aims must also be proportionate to the aim and be (reasonably) necessary to achieve it.

In the case of Seldon, the Employment Tribunal held that the aims of the firm’s retirement policy were justified and did relate to a social policy; However, Mr Seldon appealed this decision right up to the Supreme Court.  Upon dismissing Mr Seldon’s appeal, the Supreme Court held all three of the firm’s aims were legitimate and related to social policies of promoting opportunities among younger workers (aims 1 and 2) and maintaining employees’ dignity (aim 3).  

Nevertheless on dismissing Mr Seldon’s appeal, the Supreme Court did refer an important issue back to the Employment Tribunal – whether the retirement age of 65 was the correct age to compulsorily retire partners.

Implications of the case for employers:

Whilst the decision in this case appears to give employers the power to cull older employees from their workforce, this is not the case. In putting a compulsory retirement age in place, any employer will have to justify their policy and show their means of achieving their policy are reasonable. Failure to do so will put employers at risk of costly employment tribunal claims. It is important to note that the particular circumstances of each case will be an important factor in determining whether an aim is justifiable and what might be a justifiable aim for one employer will not necessarily be justifiable for another.

There will be a range of circumstances where an employer will be able to justify a compulsory retirement age. However, as yet there is no guidance on what age it will be reasonable to compulsorily retire an employee until the employment tribunal in Seldon v Clarkson Wright returns a final decision on this point.

For information on Holmes & Hills flexible employment law services for employers, click here.

Supporters turned out in their droves to cheer on runners at various points along the 26 mile course which leads runners through some of the finest countryside Essex has to offer. Whilst offering some impressive views the course is renowned amongst those in the running community as one of the hardest marathons in the country due to the area’s rolling hills.

Despite the difficult route, Holmes & Hills’ Managing Partner, Mark Cornell, put the rest of us to shame by completing the course in his lime green Holmes & Hills t-shirt; he even took advantage of the odd photo opportunity on the way round (see below).

Holmes & Hills would like to congratulate all those who took part in the 2012 Halstead & Essex Marathon and would like to thank Halstead Road Runners for organising another fantastic local event.

With the number of individuals petitioning for their own bankruptcy increasing, landlords will no doubt welcome the Court of Appeal’s recent decision that landlords do not require permission of the court in order to enforce a tenancy possession order against an undischarged bankrupt defaulting on their rent.

Bankrupts are protected from distress from creditors (including landlords) under the Insolvency Act 1986. The Act provides undischarged bankrupts (s 285), and individuals subject to debt relief orders (DRO) (s 251), with a moratorium preventing creditors from enforcing “a remedy in respect of a debt”. It also requires creditors to apply to court before taking any action against a debtor in respect of the debts owed to them.

In ‘Sharples v Places for People Home Ltd’ and ‘Godfrey v A2 Dominion Homes Ltd’, Sharples and Godfrey (the tenants) were subject to a bankruptcy order and a debt relief order respectively. Landlords in both cases applied to court to exercise their right to repossess the tenants’ property on the grounds the tenants had failed to pay rent for a period of at least 8 weeks (schedule 2, Housing Act 1988).

Sharples and Godfrey argued the repossession orders requested by the landlords’ were a remedy against the debtor and should be caught by the restriction on creditor action. The tenants argued that it was wrong to take a narrow view of the law which limited “remedy in respect of a debt” to only those remedies that allow a creditor to recover outstanding debts.

It was argued that whilst the repossession orders are not direct recovery actions themselves, they are effectively recovery remedies as they would have the effect of compelling the debtor to pay the outstanding rent or lose their home, effectively putting the landlord in a preferential position compared with other creditors.

The court held that landlords are able to exercise their right to repossess a property let by way of an assured tenancy to a defaulting bankrupt. Exercising the right of repossession was a proprietary right. It did not give the landlord any greater chance of recovering the debt owed to them by the bankrupt’s estate but did protect the landlord from future losses resulting from repeated default. The court also stated that whilst the threat of repossession may well compel the debtor to pay future rent, these payments would not come from the bankrupt’s estate but from their income. These payments would therefore from part of the bankrupt’s reasonable domestic expenditure.

Despite this decision, landlords should note that they are not able to suspend a repossession order subject to payment of rent arrears. Suspending repossession subject to such a demand places the landlord in an advantageous position compared with other unsecured creditors and is therefore prohibited under the Insolvency Act 1986.

 For information on Holmes & Hills’ Landlord & Tenant services, call David Dixey on 01376 320456.

Dr Jennifer Wild of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London argues less than half of those that suffer from PTSD seek help or treatment for the disorder. Further, those that do often wait months or even years before doing so because they do not recognise the symptoms, are unsure who to approach, or are ashamed of not being able to cope with the condition themselves.

Dr Wild went on to say that even where sufferers do approach their GP for support “surveys show that many GPs are not very familiar with PTSD or the best way to treat it”.

Symptoms of PTSD:

Because many of the symptoms associated with PTSD overlap with other conditions – such as depression – sufferers can be misdiagnosed and offered the wrong form of treatment. Symptoms – such as problems sleeping – can also appear to be the source of the problem leading to treatment and medicines being prescribed which deal with the symptom but do little to resolve the underlying PTSD condition.

Dr Wild said: “When GPs hear their patients talking about sleep problems or feeling low, they should also ask if the patient has been through a traumatic event. Then they need to ask about the classic symptoms of PTSD”.

Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder include:

• Anxiety attacks
• Reliving the event in dreams and flashbacks
• Having problems sleeping
• Feeling irritable, isolated and even guilty

What to do if you have PTSD?

If you have been diagnosed with PTSD or believe you may be suffering with some or all of the above symptoms, Holmes & Hills Solicitors offer free legal advice and representation to those wishing to make a clam for PTSD compensation.

Our specialist solicitors will tell you:

• Whether you are able to make a claim for PTSD compensation
• Who you should approach for help, support and treatment for your PTSD
• How to start no-win, no-fee claim for compensation

For further information on making a post-traumatic stress compensation claim, click here.

In the recent case of Capita Hartshead v Byard, Lord Justice Elias argued many employers were too quick to suspend employees without giving due consideration to other measures available to them, short of suspension. He went on to say that whilst a letter to the employee confirming the suspension will often reiterate that suspension is a means of facilitating investigation into the allegations of misconduct, rather than an indication the employer believes the individual is guilty, the action inevitably has effects both on the individual and potentially the wider workforce. For the employee in question suspension can lead to feelings of belittlement and demoralisation.

Lord Justice Elias went on to emphasise that the inappropriate or “knee jerk” use of suspension could give rise to a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence contained in all employment contracts. In turn this might afford the employee a successful constructive dismissal claim. Even if such a claim is unsuccessful it can be costly for an employer to defend it.

The message from this case is that whilst suspension may be a suitable response to a serious misconduct allegation, employers must always establish the facts before rushing to suspend.

For information on Holmes & Hills’ flexible employment advice services for employers, see our ‘Employment’ pages.

The survey of 4,340 adults carried out by psychologists at the University of Ulster concluded: “Northern Ireland has the highest level of 12-month and lifetime PTSD among all comparable studies undertaken across the world including other areas of conflict”.

The report has attracted much comment from other PTSD campaigners and research groups. Following its publication, David Bolton, lead researcher with the Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation (NICTT), called for better support and treatment to be offered to those suffering with PTSD.

Mr Bolton said: “International research shows that recovery from PTSD is unlikely if sufferers do not have access to trauma focused-treatment”.

For those diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, or who believe they display some of the symptoms of PTSD, Holmes & Hills’ team of specialist personal injury solicitors offer free legal advice and representation on how to make a claim for compensation, as well as guidance on who you can approach for on-going help and support.

For further information on making a no-win, no-fee claim for PTSD compensation, click here.

Daniel Sturman, a solicitor in Holmes & Hills’ Commercial Property Team, led three seminars attended by over 65 property professionals from across the region. In his talk Daniel explained how landlords and tenants can go about ending leases, including discussing:

- Break clauses

- Forfeiture

- Surrender

- Notices

Steven Hopkins, a contentious property litigator inHolmes & Hills’ Planning & Development Department, then went through “10 things you need to know about dilapidations in respect of commercial leases”. In his talk Steven outlined the procedure for dealing with claims for terminal dilapidations and how claims are quantified in the courts.

Attendees at the popular series of seminars included leading regional property consultants, surveyors and agents. Following the presentations by Daniel and Steven guests had the opportunity to fire any questions they had at our specialists whislt being treated to wine and a range of canapes.

To date Holmes & Hills have organised seminars covering legal developments relating to employment, landlord & tenant, commercial property and planning law which have attracted nearly 300 professionals and business owners from across the region.  For details of upcoming events, click here to see our Events pages.