Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In association with Iain Larkins from Radius Law, we discuss:
Cryptoassets and smart contracts
Bribery and corruption
We focus on the commercial aspects and look at the practical steps for you to consider.
The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce of the LawTech Delivery Panel (which is made up of representatives of barristers, solicitors, the judiciary, the FCA and the Law Commission) issued a statement in November that cryptoassets can be treated, in principle, as property and that smart contracts are capable of being contracts under English law. Whilst the statement has been referred to as a watershed moment for English law, it noted that new legislation
will be required to determine how the governing law will be decided and that there are likely to be difficulties identifying the owner of cryptoassets in systems where transactions take place using anonymous addresses. For smart contracts, there
are also unresolved issues including whether coding experts will be needed to explain the intention of the contract and who will bear the risk of coding mistakes.
See LNB News: Cryptoassets to be treated as property, LawTech Delivery Panel statement concludes
The most common ways to lawfully transfer personal data outside of the EEA is to use standard (European Commission approved) contractual clauses (SCCs) or the Privacy Shield for transfers to the U.S. The Privacy Shield is a self-certification procedure
where organisations commit to certain data protection standards. The lawfulness of both systems has been challenged but the EU’s Advocate General has, surprisingly, validated SCCs as still being lawful but emphasised that this is conditional
on the recipient country having a right of action against the organisation that controls the data and the laws of that country not conflicting with the SCCs. At the same time the Advocate General expressed doubts about the Privacy Shield’s
conformity with European data protection laws. The Advocate General’s opinion is not binding but usually the Court of Justice follows the opinion. The full judgment is likely to come out in the first half of this year.
See LexisPSL News Analysis: Advocate General opines EU standard contractual clauses are valid (Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems)
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office: has issued new guidance to organisations on how to
comply with data protection law when processing ‘special category data’ – that’s data that concerns, amongst other things, health and political opinions; and has updated its guidance on responding to subject access
requests – particularly for dealing with ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive requests’.
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) provide protection and rights to ‘employees’ who work for a business or on a contract that is transferred to another organisation. The London Central Employment
Tribunal has now widened the protection to also include ‘workers’. Worker status is a ‘half-way house’ between employee and self-employed status and is commonly referred to as a contractor. The TUPE rights include
making the new employer liable for employment breaches of the previous employer – a costly issue in this case as the previous employer had not paid holiday pay.
See LexisPSL News Analysis: TUPE 2006 applies to all workers, not just traditional employees (Dewhurst v (1) Revisecatch Ltd t/a Ecourier (2) City Sprint (UK))
The HMRC has updated the Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool and added a new section to the Employment Status Manual,
which provides guidance on the new tool.
The CEST tool is designed to help individuals and organisations decide if a worker should be treated as employed for income tax and NICs purposes. It has been updated to take into account the changes to IR35, which are due to come into effect on the 6
April. Under the new rules, medium to large sector employers in the private sector will become responsible for deciding the employment status of some contractors and may be liable to pay the income tax and NICs of those contractors.
For further information on IR35, see Practice Note: IR35—off-payroll workers
Ethical veganism has been held to be a ‘philosophical belief’ and protected in law, a Tribunal has ruled for the first time . Considering this ruling, we recommend employers consider reviewing how they support ethical vegans in their company (e.g. offering vegan options in any staff canteen or business lunches).
Whistle-blowers are, subject to some conditions, protected from unfair treatment. Two recent cases have clarified the law in this area.
The Court of Appeal case of Ibrahim v HCA International Limited concerned the condition that the disclosure must be in the public interest to afford the whistle-blower protection. The Court of Appeal overturning earlier decisions has sent a reminder
that the public interest condition has a low threshold. The whistle-blower only needs to show that he or she reasonably believed at the time of making a disclosure that it was in the public interest and criticised the tribunal in this case for
not asking the unrepresented Mr Ibrahim whether, at the time of his disclosures, he believed he was acting in the public interest. The case has now been remitted to the tribunal.
See Case: Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd
Separately, in the Supreme Court case of Royal Mail Group v Jhuti, it has been ruled that the 'true reason’ for a dismissal must be identified and an organisation cannot escape liability simply because a dismissal was finally determined by someone
who did not have knowledge of the whistle-blowing disclosure. In this case the decision to dismiss had been made by such an independent decision maker who did not have knowledge of the disclosure but who had been provided false information concocted
by Ms Juhti’s line manager following a disclosure which was not well received by him.
See News Analysis: Supreme Court looks behind employer’s stated reason for dismissal (Royal Mail v Jhuti)
The European Court of Human Rights overturning an earlier decision has held that there had not been any violation of the European Convention on Human Rights by a Spanish supermarket that installed covert video surveillance where there was a high level
This decision is not however a green light for employers to carry out as much covert surveillance as they wish. It’s important to note that in this case that the monitoring was limited to an area in a public space and was only carried out for a
limited and specific period of time.
See News Analysis: Hidden CCTV to investigate suspicions of serious theft did not breach employees’ right to privacy (López Ribalda and others v Spain)
European Law provides all workers a statutory 4-week annual holiday entitlement. Some member states have extended the annual statutory holiday entitlement. In Great Britain it’s 5.6 weeks.
There has been confusion about whether an employee who, due to sickness absence, has not been able to take his or her statutory holiday is only entitled to carry over the 4-week holiday granted by European Law or whether he or she will also be entitled
to carry over the additional statutory holiday granted by local law. The European Court of Justice has now confirmed that employers are only required to permit four weeks carry-over.
See News Analysis: ECJ: carrying over of holiday above the minimum four weeks may be restricted (TSN v (1) Hyvinvointialan liitto ry (2) Fimlab Laboratoriot Oy)
The spate of gig economy cases have usually centred on the employer trying to prove that a person engaged by it is a free-lance contractor rather than a worker. A critical question in these debates is whether the person has the right to substitute
his or her duties to another person.
In a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case the claimant was a delivery courier who undertook fixed time slots for the employer. During the fixed slot, the claimant was confined to his agreed operation zone and undertook deliveries that were offered
to him via an app for an agreed hourly wage. He was not allowed to work for another delivery company during this time and was mandated to complete the slot unless another courier agreed to accept the slot. The EAT ruled that due to the restrictive
nature of the right of substitution he was a worker and therefore entitled to certain employment law rights including minimum pay and statutory holiday.
See News Analysis: Worker status: right to release shift into approved pool is not a right of substitution (Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine)
The Health and Safety Executive has issued advice to employers whose workers use
display screen equipment such as laptops, computers, smartphones and tablets. In order to comply, employers must conduct a workstation assessment, provide training and information for workers, provide an eye test if requested, and ensure workers
take regular breaks from such work.
In December the Competition and Markets Authority published its interim report into online platforms and digital advertising.
The report raises concerns that these markets distort competition. The concerns are mostly pointed at Facebook and Google and include some proposed changes - particularly that consumers should have the option to use the platforms without having
to have their data used for personalised advertising. Responses to the consultation are sought by 12 February 2020. The final report to the consultation is due in the summer.
See LNB News: CMA market study: CMA consults on interim report in online platforms and digital advertising market study
The Serious Fraud Office published its Corporate Cooperation Guidance. The guidance provides a framework for how an investigation should be conducted.
Under the Code for Crown Prosecutors in England a company (or individual) should only be prosecuted if the evidence provides a realistic prospect of conviction, and it would be in the public interest to prosecute. If the company conducts a genuinely
proactive approach when the offending is brought to its notice, including self-reporting and remedial actions and compensation of victims – then a prosecution is less likely.
See News Analysis: SFO’s co-operation guidance feels like a missed opportunity
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Louisa leads marketing for the in-house legal community at LexisNexis. She joined the dedicated in-house team at LexisNexis four years ago and has a passion for driving and facilitating initiatives which are customer-focused at their heart. Her vision
is to support in-house counsel succeed in their fast-evolving role based on deep insight, data analysis and best practice gathered across the in-house community.
Prior to her in-house focused role, Louisa led the marketing for the bar and mid-market private practice sectors as well as product marketing lead for LexisPSL - LexisNexis' cloud based, practical guidance and legal research software solution.
She brings 20 years' marketing experience both client and agency side, specialising in B2B marketing in the Legal, TMT (Telco, Media and Technology) and Financial Services industries. In both South Africa, Europe and the UK.
Louisa is also an active member on the LexisNexis Gender Equality Matters (GEM) steering committee and is involved with the Families at LexisNexis Group which brings together, supports and lobbies for change those with an interest in balancing the challenges
of work and family.
0330 161 1234