This week the Justice Beat focuses on royal wedding fever, the gig economy and City firms under scrutiny.
Royal wedding fever – and the Supreme Court
1. Much as your Justice Beat hates to admit it, we’ll probably be watching former Suits star, Meghan Markle, wed a prince on Saturday. But we know one couple who probably won’t be taken in by the glamour of a royal wedding. Rebecca and Charles were in the Supreme Court this week to argue for their right not to get married, reports the Guardian. The case, on CrowdJustice here, seeks the right for heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships.
2. And though divorce may not be on the minds of those watching the Royal Wedding, happily ever after is not for everyone. In a rare contested divorce case which went to the Supreme Court this week, a woman is fighting for the right to divorce her husband after a 40-year marriage, writes the FT. The law currently requires a couple to have lived apart for five years when one party contests the divorce petition; Mr and Mrs Owens have lived apart for only two.
Good gig bad gig
3. Writing in the New Statesman, James Farrar of IWGB tells readers “not to be fooled” by Deliveroo’s payout to employees, because drivers – the backbone of the business – are excluded. Deliveroo riders at the IWGB this week launched a CrowdJustice campaign to continue to fight the company in court for the right to minimum wage, holiday pay and trade union recognition.
4. Meanwhile Uber has scrapped arbitration clauses for any employee, driver or rider who says they have experienced sexual harassment or assault. The development will make it easier for survivors of sexual harassment and assault to come forward, writes Legal Week.
City firms under scrutiny
5. City firms “squeezed” income from stricken Carillion, writes the Law Society Gazette. Some naming and shaming goes on at the end of the article, with a list of firms, and they fees they charged, just before the company went under.
6. Meanwhile, a London firm has been referred to a disciplinary tribunal for failing to ascertain whether clients were “reportedly linked with the proceeds of crime” or were “politically exposed persons,” reports the Guardian. Child & Child apparently claimed that their clients, the daughters of Azerbaijan’s president, had no political interests when they set up an offshore company. Details the offshore company were leaked in the Panama Papers.
* * *
This week on CrowdJustice, campaigners fight against puppy factories in Ireland, an activist takes on a laser eye surgery provider, and Dr Chris Day wins whistleblowing protection for all junior doctors after a three and a half year legal battle.