The Spanish case, Francisco Vincente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA, concerned a Council worker who was refused the right to reschedule his holiday when he suffered an injury just before he was due to take it. The Court in Luxembourg concluded that under the European Union Working Time Directive, he should be allowed to alter his holiday dates and should not be “forced to take annual leave during a period of sick leave.”

Controversially, the terms of the judgement also revealed that employees would be able to carry annual leave affected by illness over into the next holiday year. This revelation flouts the current rules of the Working Times Directive, which states that employees must use all holiday within a year or lose it. 

The case comes shortly after the disputed House of Lords and ECJ case, Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others, concerning tribunal claims for holiday pay relating to periods of long term sick leave where entitlement to sick pay had been exhausted. Here the ECJ also ruled in the employees favour, concluding that workers would accrue statutory holiday and must be allowed to take it on their return to work or be paid in lieu of it if their employment is terminated.

These judgements have concerned human resource professionals who argue that the law will be open to abuse by those seeking to extend their holiday entitlement when their leave has begun. The CIPD, described the judgement as “extremely disturbing…it may be logical for lawyers, but it is a ruling completely divorced from the real world.”

It is thought that this ruling will be particularly detrimental to small businesses, who may not be able to cover the administration costs or cope with cases of abuse. After the ruling, Katja Hall of th]]>02/10/2009http://www.prettys.co.uk/default.asp?p=67&l=1&a=140On the 30th of July 2009 the judicial role of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court came to an end. On the 1st of October 2009 a brand new Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction on points of lawOn the 30th of July 2009 the judicial role of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court came to an end. On the 1st of October 2009 a brand new Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction on points of law for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 officially recognized the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in law and the current Law Lords of the House of Lords will be the first ‘Justices’ to grace the £63 million building in a new twelve-member format. Previously as members of the House of Lords, the Law Lords were heavily involved in debate and enactment of Government legislation, however the creation of the Supreme Court signifies a change that will leave the senior judges completely separate from the Parliamentary process. This development formalises a separation of the role of judiciary and legislature and increases the transparency between Parliament and the Courts.

The Supreme Court’s new role will be to hear appeals for civil cases for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and criminal cases from only England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There will be no right of appeal to the Supreme Court from Scotland’s highest criminal court, the High Court of Justiciary. The appeals will only be heard on arguable points of law of general public importance and of the greatest constitutional significance. The new Court has also taken over the powers of the judicial committee of the Privy Council to rule in devolution cases where disputes arise about the authority of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

However some offence has been taken to this revolutionary change in judicial power, leading to controversy and debate. Much disputation originates from the vast sums of money spent in the relocation and alteration of the former Middlesex Guildhall, which sits opposite the Houses of Parliament and encompasses three courtrooms. Critics argue the current system worked compet]]>01/10/2009