Monthly Archives: July 2012

ILN Today Post

Costs in trust litigation – a recent development

Trustees and beneficiaries involved in trust litigation are naturally concerned to understand the circumstances in which they can expect to recover their costs of proceedings (either from another party or by indemnification out of the assets of the fund) or in which they might have to pay another party’s costs. Two English cases establishing the costs position in various categories of trust litigation have long been the starting point for any such consideration.

In Alsop Wilkinson v Neary and others [1994] Ch. 2692 Mr Justice Lightman identified three types of dispute which might concern a trustee. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

An arguable case against joining insurers

In recent times, with some notable exceptions1, the bar for joining insurers to proceedings has been lowering (see our previous update Courts lower the bar on claims).  However, a recent case, Energize Fitness Pty Ltd v Vero Insurance Limited [2012] NSWCA 213 (Energize) (handed down on 19 July 2012), has apparently stemmed the tide.

In Energize, the NSW Court of Appeal held that: More…

Read full article

Week of July 23, 2012 on ILNToday – A Roundup

Despite it being summer and many of our attorneys being away for holidays, this July has been incredibly busy around here at the ILN! So today is a welcome Friday. Without further ado, here are your top posts for this week on ILNToday:

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Employment Appeal Tribunal upholds dismissal at second attempt as fair

Baby P’s death almost five years ago led to the dismissal of a number of Haringey Council employees.  The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that the dismissals of the case worker directly responsible for Baby P’s care and her manager, 18 months after the death and 12 months after they were both initially issued with written warnings, were fair.

Ms Ward was the Council case worker assigned to Baby P’s care in June 2007.  At this time, Baby P was on the child protection register and was subject to a child protection plan under which he was due to be seen by the Council every 14 days.  On 1 June 2007, Baby P was observed to be bruised.  Baby P’s mother then advised the Council that she was taking him away for a short period whilst she cared for a sick relative.  Ms Ward did not ask where Baby P was to be taken and did not confirm that he had gone meaning that he was not seen by the Council at any time between 19 June 2007 and 11 July 2007.  Baby P died on 3 August 2007 having sustained serious injuries. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Help is at hand

This article was originally published on www.lady.co.uk

Motherhood is upon you and you need help. But where to start? What is the difference between a nanny and an au pair? Are there any legal pitfalls?

What kind of help do you need?

Nannies are childcare professionals. Specific roles may mean they help with the odd task around the house, but their primary focus is to help raise children. By contrast, an au pair is really just ‘an extra pair of hands’. Au pairs are generally young girls from abroad looking to experience life in England and learn English, and usually they have very limited childcare experience. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Employment and Safety Client Update – July 2012

Employer wins battle with union over drug testing – Tales of the unexpected: Federal Court allows new claims in adverse action case

Employer wins battle with union over drug testing
Meryl Remedios, Solicitor of Gadens Lawyers Sydney.

A Full Court of the Federal Court has upheld the rights of an employer to require its employees to undergo mandatory drug and alcohol testing. The case centred on a dispute between an employer and a union. The dispute was about the interpretation of their enterprise agreement, specifically in relation to workplace safety provisions and the employer’s entitlement to require compulsory drug and alcohol testing for all employees. More…

Read full article

OSHA DELAYS I2P2 RULEMAKING . . . AGAIN

By Eric J. Conn

In what seems to be a trend, OSHA has again delayed its rulemaking process for an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (commonly known as I2P2) standard. The announcement came during a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health meeting in late June.  According to OSHA officials, we should not expect the next rulemaking phase, a small business review process, to begin until at least Labor Day.  I2P2 programs, which aim to reduce workplace injuries by requiring employers to proactively find and fix workplace hazards, have been on OSHA’s regulatory radar for quite some time.

Agency hold-ups, however, and more recently, election-year politics, have left the rulemaking process at a standstill.  The timeline below illustrates OSHA’s “progress” to date on the I2P2 Rule:

Read full article
ILN Today Post

NINTH CIRCUIT SHREDS PROPOSED FROSTED MINI-WHEATS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

The Ninth Circuit did not sugar coat its decision rejecting the proposed $10.6 million settlement in a putative class action accusing Kellogg Co. of making false claims that Frosted Mini-Wheats enhance children’s ability to pay attention.

In Dennis v. Kellogg Co., the plaintiffs alleged unfair competition and false advertising claims against Kellogg based on its marketing campaign for Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s approval of the proposed settlement and vacated it, finding that the contemplated cy pres donation to charities that feed the indigent did not sufficiently benefit the class or bear any nexus to the plaintiffs’ false advertising claims. More…

Read full article

Texas Privacy Protections Becoming Bigger

Texas Mapby Pamela Tyner

They say that everything is bigger in Texas, and the Lone Star State’s new privacy protection laws are no exception. Texas House Bill 300 (“HB 300″) amends the Texas Medical Records Privacy Act (“Texas Act”) and takes effect on September 1, 2012. HB 300 significantly expands patient privacy protections for Texas covered entities beyond those federal requirements as outlined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act.

Read the full post on the Health Employment And Labor Blog

Read full article

To BYOD or not to BYOD, that is the question . . . when protecting health information.

I’m sure most of you know about BYOB, but do you know about BYOD (Bring Your Own Device).  This is the term used when a company chooses to forgo issuing company-owned mobile computing devices (think smartphones and tablets), and encourages its employees to use their own personal mobile devices for business purposes.  And in the healthcare context, BYOD has important implications.

For better or for worse, many companies have opted to institute a BYOD policy for a number of reasons.  Here are just a few rationales for BYOD:

Read full article