• At Kemp Little, we are known for our ability to serve the very particular needs of a large but diverse technology client base. Our hands-on industry know-how makes us a good fit with many of the world's biggest technology and digital media businesses, yet means we are equally relevant to companies with a technology bias, in sectors such as professional services, financial services, retail, travel and healthcare.
  • Kemp Little specialises in the technology and digital media sectors and provides a range of legal services that are crucial to fast-moving, innovative businesses.Our blend of sector awareness, technical excellence and responsiveness, means we are regularly ranked as a leading firm by directories such as Legal 500, Chambers and PLC Which Lawyer. Our practice areas cover a wide range of legal issues and advice.
  • Our Commercial Technology team has established itself as one of the strongest in the UK. We are ranked in Legal 500, Chambers & Partners and PLC Which Lawyer, with four of our partners recommended.
  • Our team provides practical and commercial advice founded on years of experience and technical know-how to technology and digital media companies that need to be alert to the rules and regulations of competition law.
  • Our Corporate Practice has a reputation for delivering sound legal advice, backed up with extensive industry experience and credentials, to get the best results from technology and digital media transactions.
  • In the fast-changing world of employment law our clients need practical, commercial and cost-effective advice. They get this from our team of employment law professionals.
  • Our team of leading IP advisors deliver cost-effective, strategic and commercial advice to ensure that your IP assets are protected and leveraged to add real value to your business.
  • Our litigation practice advises on all aspects of dispute resolution, with a particular focus on ownership, exploitation and infringement of intellectual property rights and commercial disputes in the technology sector.
  • We have an industry-leading reputation for our outsourcing expertise. Our professionals deliver credible legal advice to providers and acquirers of IT and business process outsourcing (BPO) services.
  • We work alongside companies, many with disruptive technologies, that seek funding, as well as with the venture capital firms, institutional investors and corporate ventures that want to invest in exciting business opportunities.
  • Our regulatory specialists work alongside Kemp Little’s corporate and commercial professionals to help meet their compliance obligations.
  • With a service that is commercial and responsive to our clients’ needs, you will find our tax advice easy to understand, cost-effective and geared towards maximising your tax benefits.
  • At Kemp Little, we advise clients in diverse sectors where technology is fundamental to the ongoing success of their businesses.They include companies that provide technology as a service and businesses where the use of technology is key to their business model, enabling them to bring their product or service to market.
  • We bring our commercial understanding of digital business models, our legal expertise and our reputation for delivering high quality, cost-effective services to this dynamic sector.
  • Acting for market leaders and market changers within the media industry, we combine in-depth knowledge of the structural technology that underpins content delivery and the impact of digitisation on the rights of producers and consumers.
  • We understand the risks facing this sector and work with our clients to conquer those challenges. Testimony to our success is the continued growth in our team of professionals and the clients we serve.
  • We advise at the forefront of the technological intersection between life sciences and healthcare. We advise leading technology and data analytics providers, healthcare institutions as well as manufacturers of medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnological products.
  • For clients operating in the online sector, our teams are structured to meet their commercial, financing, M&A, competition and regulatory, employment and intellectual property legal needs.
  • Our focus on technology makes us especially well positioned to give advice on the legal aspects of digital marketing. We advise on high-profile, multi-channel, cross-border cases and on highly complex campaigns.
  • The mobile and telecoms sector is fast changing and hugely dependent on technology advances. We help mobile and wireless and fixed telecoms clients to tackle the legal challenges that this evolving sector presents.
  • Whether ERP, Linux or Windows; software or infrastructure as a service in the cloud, in a virtualised environment, or as a mobile or service-oriented architecture, we have the experience to resolve legal issues across the spectrum of commercial computer platforms.
  • Our clients trust us to apply our solutions and know-how to help them make the best use of technology in structuring deals, mitigating key risks to their businesses and in achieving their commercial objectives.
  • We have extensive experience of advising customers and suppliers in the retail sector on technology development, licensing and supply projects, and in advising on all aspects of procurement and online operations.
  • Our legal professionals work alongside social media providers and users in relation to the commercial, privacy, data, advertising, intellectual property, employment and corporate issues that arise in this dynamic sector.
  • Our years of working alongside diverse software clients have given us an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of the software marketplace, market practice and alternative negotiating strategies.
  • Working with direct providers of travel services, including aggregators, facilitators and suppliers of transport and technology, our team has developed a unique specialist knowledge of the sector
  • Your life as an entrepreneur is full of daily challenges as you seek to grow your business. One of the key strengths of our firm is that we understand these challenges.
  • Kemp Little is trusted by some of the world’s leading luxury brands and some of the most innovative e-commerce retailers changing the face of the industry.
  • HR Bytes is an exclusive, comprehensive, online service that will provide you with a wide range of practical, insightful and current employment law information. HR Bytes members get priority booking for events, key insight and a range of employment materials for free.
  • FlightDeck is our portal designed especially with start-up and emerging technology businesses in mind to help you get your business up and running in the right way. We provide a free pack of all the things no-one tells you and things they don’t give away to get you started.

The changing face of UK Employment Law - keeping abreast of the changes

One of the major narrative themes that has emerged from the Coalition Government has been the idea that “red tape” is stifling Britain’s competitiveness, and its recovery from recession.  To that end, over the past 12 – 18 months we have seen a steady flurry of announcements, proposals and reviews. 

In April 2011, for example, we saw the launch of the Government’s “Red Tape Challenge”, an opportunity for businesses and members of the public to comment on 21,000 regulations to identify which could be scrapped, simplified or improved.  The regulations were grouped into particular areas, with the spotlight falling on employment law in October 2011.
Following on from this, on 23 November 2011 Vince Cable announced a raft of proposals to reform employment law.  Some of these are concrete changes, which are due to come into force shortly, others are the subject of consultations and calls for evidence.
In addition to these headline-grabbing announcements, there have been plenty of lower-profile or pre-planned changes.  Reading all of the announcements, consultations and proposed amendments would probably take half of 2012, so we have summarised some of the more notable ones below.
Proposed change
Qualifying period for unfair dismissal increases to two years
The increase will apply only to employees who start a new job on or after 6 April 2012.
In theory, this should give employers, more flexibility to dismiss employees during the early stages of their employment, and should reduce the number of unfair dismissal claims. 
In practice, this change is likely to prevent around 2000 claims a year, which only amounts to around 1% of the claims submitted each year.  It is also anticipated that there will be a corresponding increase in discrimination and whistle-blowing claims (as there is no qualifying period of service for these claims). 
Employers should continue to follow appropriate processes before dismissing employees with short service, therefore.
Increase in maximum costs a tribunal can award to £20,000
6 April 2012
The maximum amount that a Tribunal can award in costs is currently £10,000 (although it has always had the power to refer a costs decision to the County Court, which can award an unlimited amount of costs).
In theory, the increase in the Tribunal’s powers should act as an additional determent against claimants or respondents with unmeritorious cases.  However, given that costs are awarded in less than 1% of Tribunal claims and the median award is comfortably less than £2,000, it is doubtful how much impact the change will have in practice.
All employers in the UK must automatically enrol eligible jobholders in a pension scheme
The new rules will be phased in over a five year period starting in October 2011.  The date at which the rules apply to a particular employer will depend, essentially, on the number of employees the employer has on its PAYE scheme.
Employers will have to automatically enrol eligible "jobholders" in a pension scheme.  Employers will be able to use an occupational or a personal pension scheme provided it meets certain statutory requirements, or they can enrol eligible jobholders in the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST), the scheme set up by the Government.  A jobholder will be free to opt out of either type of scheme once he has been automatically enrolled, but while he remains an active member his employer will be required to pay a minimum level of pension contributions.
Note that the definition of who is a jobholder is broad, and covers employees and certain other workers.
Guidance from the Supreme Court on justifying retirement
The Supreme Court heard the appeal in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes in January 2012.  A decision is expected any time between March and June 2012.
The default retirement age of 65 was abolished in April 2011.  Employers who now wish to have a retirement age need to show that this achieves a legitimate aim and that the retirement age is a proportionate way of achieving that aim. 
The Seldon case concerns a law firm with a retirement age of 65.  In defending the claim, the firm offered justifications such as the need for workforce planning and contributing to a congenial/supportive workplace by limiting the expulsion of older workers through performance management. 
The Supreme Court decision should provide guidance on when factors such as these can be relied upon in deciding whether to have a default retirement age.
Introduction of fees for Tribunal claims
Consultation on the issue is due to close in March 2012.  It is envisaged that the fees would be introduced in 2013 - 2014. 
As things stand, an employee who wishes to bring a Tribunal claim does not need to pay a fee.  The Government is consulting on two options.
The first option would require claimants to pay a fee on issue of their claim of around £150 - £250, and a further fee of £250 - £1,250 if the claim proceeds to a hearing.  The second option would require a claimant to pay just an issue fee, ranging from £200 - £1,750.
It is envisaged that the fees would be recoverable by the claimant if their claim is successful, and that they would be exempt from paying the fees if they are in receipt of certain welfare benefits and/or if their income is below a certain level.
If the Government goes ahead with the proposal to introduce a fee structure for Tribunal claims, it seems likely that this will discourage some claimants from bringing claims.  Equally, however, a number of claimants will, by their very nature, be unemployed and therefore in receipt of benefits and/or with a low disposable income. 
Proposed amendment to whistleblowing rules to exclude breaches of the employee’s contract. 
The proposal was put forward by Vince Cable in his speech on 23 November 2011.  We are awaiting a date for when this is to be implemented.
As the law stands, an employee can disclose a breach of their own employment contract and then rely on this for the purposes of a whistle-blowing claim.  This is significant, because, unlike for ordinary unfair dismissal claims, there is no qualifying period of service in order for an employee to bring a claim, and there is no limit on the amount of damages that can be awarded. 
Vince Cable stated that the whistle-blowing legislation was not designed to cover breaches of an employee’s own contract (and we can see some force in this argument – such breaches are arguably a matter of private, rather than public, interest).  If/when it is made, the change is likely to be welcomed by employers.
Introduction of the right for employers and employees to have “protected conversations”
On 23 November 2011, the Government indicated that it would consult in 2012 about the introduction of protected conversations.  We are awaiting a date for when any reforms will be implemented.
The idea behind “protected conversations” is that an employer and employee will be able to discuss certain matters without either party being able to refer to this in subsequent Tribunal proceedings. 
In principle, this seems like a sensible idea – we often hear of complaints from both employers and employees that each just wants to know where they stand.  As is often the case, however, the devil will be in the detail – it appears that not everything said in a protected conversation will in fact be protected.  For example, it has been suggested by the Government that if an employer says something discriminatory in a protected conversation, the employee would still be able to refer to this in the Tribunal. 
As such, whilst the aim behind protected conversations might be laudable, it does not take a great deal of imagination to foresee a lot of ancillary litigation occurring in relation to exactly what was said in a protected conversation and whether this should be admissible as evidence in Tribunal proceedings.  It is also worth noting that employers and employees already have, in principle, the ability to hold ‘without prejudice’ conversations, the details of which are not admissible in legal proceedings.
Review of TUPE laws
The Government published a call for evidence in relation to the TUPE laws on 23 November 2011.  The call for evidence closed on 31 January 2012.  We are awaiting a date for when any reforms will be implemented.
The TUPE rules provide protections to employees on the transfer of a business and in outsourcing situations.  The Government has suggested that the existing rules are overly bureaucratic and ‘gold-plate’ the European legislation on which they are based (the Acquired Rights Directive).
It remains to be seen what concrete proposals the Government will come up with to reform TUPE, but its remove for manoeuvre is relatively limited precisely because TUPE is derived from a European directive.  One area where TUPE does go beyond the directive is in its very wide application to almost all outsourcing situations.  However, these provisions were introduced to remove the previous ambiguity in this area which was felt to be causing problems for businesses.  It is not clear, therefore, whether reverting to the previous rules would in fact be helpful to businesses.