Short summaries of each article are shown below. If you would like to view the full article, click on the underlined links. To return to the start, click on the "Go back" link.
STRATEGY, STUDENTS AND GOVERNANCE
"I'm not dead yet" – University Visitor
Our article explains the relatively small residual powers of the University Visitor in the chartered institutions, following the end of the Visitor's jurisdiction in relation to student complaints. Read more.
FINANCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
VAT and development: a helpful case
The Court of Appeal has given a favourable ruling for the University of Cambridge in a recent VAT case. The case involved an election to charge VAT made by Newnham College as part of an arrangement to allow the College to recover input tax on the rebuilding and refurbishment of its library. The Court ruled that the option to tax would not be disapplied, because the College was not to remain "in occupation" of the land subject to the option to tax. Read more.
VAT and publicly funded research: an unhelpful decision
The High Court has ruled that publicly funded research carried on by the University of Southampton was a separate economic activity from the University's other activities. Accordingly, the University was not allowed credit for VAT to the extent that is was incurred in the provision of goods and services used for publicly funded research. Read more.
ESTATES
High level trespass: cranes and oversail licences
Our article explains the legal position between neighbouring landowners where the jib of a crane stationed on one's property "oversails" the other's airspace. Read more.
HUMAN RESOURCES
Rolled-up holiday pay arrangements can survive ECJ ruling
This article explains the current position in this complex area, following a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice. Read more.
Age discrimination – final draft of Regulations reduces impact
The final text of the Age Discrimination Regulations is now out and universities need to give urgent attention to planning for these major changes – by auditing practices, changing contracts, developing retirement procedures and training managers. Read more.
STRATEGY, STUDENTS AND GOVERNANCE
"I'm not dead yet" – University Visitor
This article looks at the continuing role and powers of the university Visitor in chartered institutions, and whether the post could be effectively abolished. It is relevant to chartered institutions in England and Wales.
Visitatorial jurisdiction and power
An eleemosynary corporation is a charitable corporation (established for the perpetual distribution of the free alms or bounty of the founder). Under the founder's right to determine matters relating to his or her own endowment, charitable corporations became subject to visitations by the founder and his heirs, unless otherwise provided by the founder. This is the jurisdiction which has survived to the present day in the chartered universities and colleges.
The most recent statement of the Visitor's jurisdiction was given in the case of Labinjo v The University of Salford by Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, exercising his judgment on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen as the University's Visitor: "Universities … which are established by Royal Charter, are eleemosynary corporations and the administration of their domestic laws is a matter over which the Visitor of the university has an exclusive jurisdiction. In other words, if a matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Visitor, the general rule is that it may not be litigated in the courts. The Visitor must not assume a jurisdiction that he does not have, but equally must not refuse to exercise a jurisdiction which exists."
In the leading case of Thomas v University of Bradford, Lord Griffiths stated that the "domestic jurisdiction" (ie that of the Visitor) referred to "those matters which are governed by the internal laws of the foundation. This will include not only the interpretation and enforcement of those laws themselves but those internal powers and discretions that derive from the internal laws such as the discretion necessarily bestowed upon those in authority in the exercise of their disciplinary functions over members of the foundation."
Areas now excluded from the Visitor's jurisdiction
Section 20 of the Higher Education Act 2005 (HEA) effectively excludes the Visitor's jurisdiction in relation to complaints by students, former students, and applicants for admission as students.
HEA (section 46) also deals with staff disputes, superseding and repealing section 206 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (ERA).
In our view section 46 effectively excludes the Visitor's jurisdiction which had arguably survived ERA in relation to staff grievances concerning collective or departmental matters, and staff disputes concerning the application of the statutes and other internal laws.
There are some residual areas where staff may bring matters to the Visitor's attention, as long as those matters do not concern individual or collective appointments or employment or the termination of employment, and there is no remedy available in any other forum. This is likely we think to be limited to public interest disclosure challenges and possibly public law-type challenges to institutional decision-making on matters other than employment-related (but only if judicial review is not available).
The Visitor therefore in our view has no continuing role in relation to student or general employment matters.
As in practice historically most petitions to the Visitor have been in these two areas, the questions arise: what remains of the Visitor's jurisdiction? are there are any residual powers? and do you have to have a Visitor at all?
Can we abolish the Visitor?
The visitatorial jurisdiction, subject to the specific statutory exclusions, is built into the fabric of chartered institutions as eleemosynary corporations. In our view therefore, without specific statutory authority to that effect, chartered universities and colleges are not capable of abolishing the post of Visitor.
Nor can the same effect be achieved by simply not appointing a Visitor. If the institution's charter or statutes require that a Visitor shall be appointed, and the institution does not appoint one, the post devolves automatically to the Crown.
What are the residual jurisdiction and powers of the Visitor?
Subject to the statutory exclusions noted above, the Visitor has power to settle disputes between members of the corporation, to inspect and regulate their actions and behaviour, and generally to correct all abuses and irregularities in the administration of the institution.
Unsolicited "general visitations" seem to be at least obsolescent. However a Visitor may at any time hear complaints and appeals of individual members of the corporation, apart from students and staff (concerning matters of their employment or disputes with the institution which could be heard elsewhere), and decree an appropriate remedy. In practice, "members" who might wish to make use of the visitatorial jurisdiction are likely to be limited to members of Council (or the equivalent body) who are normally defined in statutes as members of the institution, and possibly members of staff raising matters completely unconnected with their employment and unconnected with any dispute which could be litigated elsewhere.
Members of the institution (such as Council members) may call on the Visitor to investigate public law-type issues (for example, the proper exercise of delegated powers in relation to a major strategic decision or capital project); public interest disclosures (for example, where academic malpractice is alleged); and other matters such as appointment to membership of Council or equivalent, elections to office within the institution, or matters concerning the institution's responsibilities in relation to its students' union. Such matters remain the preserve of the Visitor to the exclusion of the courts, and the Visitor may not lawfully refuse to hear matters within his or her jurisdiction.
A recent decision of the Visitor of the University of Ulster illustrates the kind of case which a university Visitor in England and Wales might be called on to hear. The petition was presented by a student member of the UU Canoe Club, the "Save Our Pools Committee", to challenge the University's decision-making process in relation to the closure of swimming pools. The Visitor, among other matters, considered questions concerning the proper exercise of delegated authority: the committee which made the decision, and senior officers who confirmed it, had not had the decision on closure of pools specifically delegated to them, nor did it fall within their general terms of reference. In the event, the Visitor decided that, as Council had ratified the decision later, he did not need to make a finding on the point; but he recommended that UU clarify the system of delegation of decision-making, so that parties interested in a particular decision might know the identity of and the circumstances in which a committee or officers had power to make particular decisions. (See our article of last month – Watch your delegations! for more on this issue). Go back.
nicola.hart@pinsentmasons.com
FINANCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
VAT and development: a helpful case
This article applies the law of England and Wales.
Newnham College, Cambridge makes supplies of education which are exempt supplies for the purposes of VAT. The College wished to refurbish its library and avoid irrecoverable VAT on the rebuilding and refurbishment works. The College incorporated a subsidiary ("NCLCL"), then opted to charge VAT in respect of the main College building (including the library) and granted a lease to NCLCL in respect of the land on which the construction work was to take place. The basic reasoning behind this structure from a tax perspective was to ensure that VAT on the construction works could be attributed to the VAT-able supply of the lease from the College to NCLCL. The College also entered into agreement with NCLCL for the sale of books and other library assets, the secondment of library staff to NCLCL, the administration of the library and for the hire of books to NCLCL in order to provide library services to the College.
VAT Legislation
HM Revenue & Customs sought to disapply the College's election to charge VAT. The VAT legislation provides that VAT elections made by developers of land can be disapplied where it is intended that the land in question will become "exempt land". For HMRC to invoke this argument successfully, it needed to show that the College would be "in occupation" of the library, within the meaning of the VAT legislation.
The Tribunal's Decision and the Appeal
The VAT and Duties Tribunal agreed with the Commissioners of HMRC that the College's VAT election was of no effect because the College continued to be in occupation of the library. The following factors led the Tribunal to conclude that the College was in occupation: (i) the use of the library by students and fellows of the College; (ii) the presence of College employees on secondment to NCLCL; and (iii) the control which the College was able to exercise over NCLCL in the running of the library.
The Court of Appeal unanimously disagreed with the VAT and Duties Tribunal and allowed the College's appeal. In the Court's opinion, the meaning given to "occupy" and "occupation" in the VAT legislation required more than a right to use the land and required some degree of control over what others who were not also in occupation could do on the land. The use of the library by students and fellows of the College was not indicative of the College being in occupation because these people had no control over access to and use of the library by others. The effect of the secondment of employees of the College to NCLCL was that the duties of the library staff were no longer to be carried out under the direction of the College but of NCLCL. The fact that the library staff remained employees of the College was not sufficient to support the conclusion that the College was in occupation of the library. The arrangements reflected the true intent of the parties and had to be given the effect which, in law, they had. Although the arrangements between the College and NCLCL could have been described as contrived or artificial (in the sense that they had no commercial purpose other than to enable the College to recover input tax), the Commissioners were right to accept that they could not be treated as a façade.
Accordingly, the validity of the College's election to waive exemption from VAT was upheld. This case may be of assistance to universities and other suppliers of VAT-exempt education that wish to avoid irrecoverable VAT on construction and refurbishment works. Go back.
jon.robinson@pinsentmasons.com
VAT and publicly funded research: an unhelpful decision
This article applies the law of England and Wales.
Universities, despite the fact they are charities, can be regarded as carrying on a "business" for the purposes of VAT. The provision of education by a university is a VAT-exempt supply. Undertaking commercial research, however, is not exempt from VAT and universities are generally permitted to obtain credit for input VAT incurred on the supply of goods and services which are then used for the purposes of their commercial research business. It is therefore important for universities to distinguish between their business and non-business activities, as input VAT incurred in relation to non-business activities cannot be recovered.
The University of Southampton like most universities carries out commercial research in addition to its education-providing functions. Approximately three quarters of the university's research grants were publicly funded and the research projects funded by these grants were known as "publicly funded research" ("PFR"). HM Revenue & Customs took the view that PFR was not a "business activity" for VAT purposes since it did not result in the making of any taxable supplies and was not predominantly concerned with the making of supplies to consumers for a consideration. The High Court, upholding the decision of the VAT tribunal, held that PFR was a separate economic activity from the University's other business activities and that VAT on goods and services used exclusively for PFR was not deductible or recoverable. The High Court confirmed that VAT on goods and services used partly for PFR and partly for business purposes should be apportioned so that only so much VAT as is referable to the business activities is treated as deductible or recoverable input tax. Go back.
katherine.moule@pinsentmasons.com
ESTATES
High level trespass: cranes and oversail licences
This article applies the law of England and Wales.
What exactly is an oversail licence?
An oversail licence is an agreement which provides a land owner (and its developer) with the legal right to pass through another's air space. If a crane is used in a construction project the jib of the crane may well swing in and out of neighbouring airspace. Without an oversail licence this could constitute a trespass and the land owner could be faced with an injunction.
When might an oversail licence be required?
An oversail licence is required whenever apparatus moves through neighbouring airspace.
Whenever cranes are used there is a possibility that neighbouring airspace will be invaded by part of the crane. The risk of this has increased as cities have become more built up.
Great, so if I own land I own up to heaven and down to hell?
Well not really, here's how the law has developed.
Traditionally, English law has applied the ancient maxim that whoever owns the land owns it up to the heavens above and down to the depths of hell below. This interpretation led to widespread discussion in the eighteenth century about what constituted trespass over a person's airspace. This was perhaps best illustrated in the case of Clifton v Viscount Bury (1887) where it was held that it was not trespass to fire a bullet across another's land provided the bullet did not land on the ground.
In recent times with the advent of air travel and the use of satellites the old maxim has been tested further. In Baron Bernstein v Skyviews (1978) the defendant was a photographic company that took aerial photos of land and buildings from aircraft. Photographs were taken of an estate whose owner demanded that the negatives be destroyed as the aircraft had trespassed into his airspace. It was held that the land owner's rights over his land should be restricted to such a height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land.
It would appear from the Bernstein judgment then that as long as a crane does not interfere with the ordinary use and enjoyment of the neighbouring land then it does not constitute trespass.
The Bernstein ruling was put to the test in the late 80's in the landmark case of Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkely House (Docklands Developments) Ltd (1987).
In this case the defendant developers erected on their land tower cranes with jibs which swung over surrounding land. This happened both when the cranes were in use and also when they were not as the tower cranes needed to be left free to blow in the wind (like a weather vane) as resistance could lead to them being blown down.
The claimant owned land next to the development site and had given no permission for the invasion of their airspace. They argued that the oversail into their airspace constituted trespass. The defendant on the other hand cited the Bernstein judgment and argued that the claimant's ordinary use of the land was not affected by the crane's oversail.
The Court concluded that the crane oversail did constitute trespass and injunctions could be granted to prevent this. It is important to note that no damage needs to be shown to succeed in such an injunction.
It was this case that led to the increased use of the oversail licence.
What type of clauses will traditionally appear in an oversail licence
The licence should cover issues such as time of day (and night) that the cranes may oversail neighbouring land, the heights of the cranes and the duration of the licence. An indemnity for any damage caused by the crane may also be included.
How much does an oversail licence cost?
There is no hard and fast rule as to the fee attached to an oversail licence. However, holding a neighbour to ransom for a large sum may not be in your best interests when you seek to develop your land.
The fee for the oversail licence will need to take into consideration surveying and legal costs as well as the increased insurance cover for any damage the crane may cause to the neighbouring land. This could be extremely costly especially if the crane was used in a built up area and a number of landowners' airspace was required. Go back.
merle.wray@pinsentmasons.com
HUMAN RESOURCES
Rolled-up holiday pay arrangements can survive ECJ ruling
This article applies throughout the UK.
Rolled-up holiday pay arrangements have received much judicial scrutiny since the introduction of the Working time Regulations in 1998. A series of conflicting rulings has left the lawfulness of these practices in doubt. The latest decision - from the European Court of Justice in Caulfield v Hanson Clay Products – perpetuates that debate. The ECJ's clear view that the practice is unlawful is mitigated by other elements of the decision which allow scope for the practice to continue without significant legal risk.
‘Rolled-up’ holiday pay arrangements are those under which workers are paid for their leave entitlement through an identified element of their hourly rate of pay. In the university sector, such arrangements are common in respect of hourly paid lecturing staff or casual and hourly paid workers. Paying for holiday entitlements in this way is administratively convenient, as it avoids the need to specifically calculate holiday pay every time a worker takes leave. This is especially beneficial for the employer in circumstances where hours of work (and therefore amounts of pay) fluctuate throughout the year. However the system has been criticised as discouraging workers from taking holiday, particularly as the more work the individual carries out the more pay they earn during the year.
The ECJ has decided that the practice of rolling up holiday pay is not lawful under the Working Time Directive. The Court ruled that holiday pay must be paid in respect of a specific period during which the worker actually takes leave. Unusually, the ECJ has taken a harder line than that of the Advocate General in her advisory opinion to the Court last year, which suggested that rolled-up holiday pay could be lawful subject to the employer putting in place safeguards to ensure that workers could take the four weeks' leave to which they are entitled under the Directive.
The ECJ judgment is particularly significant because of the conflicting case law in the UK - in the Hanson case the EAT and the Court of Appeal were inclined to allow employers to use rolled-up hourly rates of pay, but there was also a Scottish Court of Session case (MPB Structures Limited v Munro) which ruled that these practices were unlawful.
Another important feature of the case law debate in this area has been the issue of whether employers who have used rolled-up hourly rates can offset the amounts paid under these arrangements against a worker's entitlement to paid leave. In some UK cases, tribunals ruled that because rolled-up rates were unlawful, the amounts paid did not count as payment of holiday pay at all. This line of authority essentially treated the workers as not having been paid any holiday pay, allowing them to recover payments from as far back as 1 October 1998 when the Regulations were first introduced and preventing the employer from offsetting any of the amounts paid through the payroll. The ECJ ruling has now established that payments made through hourly rates can be offset against the workers entitlement to holiday pay, lifting the threat of this potential double whammy and the possibility of large claims for backdated holiday pay.
Where does this ruling leave the practice of rolled-up hourly rates? Universities may wish to remove such arrangements given the ECJ's ruling that the practice is unlawful. This will require removing the holiday pay element from the rolled-up rate of pay and putting alternative arrangements in place for taking leave and calculating entitlements to pay, in most cases involving taking an average of the previous twelve weeks in which the worker has received any form of payment. However there still remains scope to continue using a rolled-up rate of pay.
Firstly, the risk to universities is limited to situations where workers seek to take annual leave and receive payment before they have received sufficient payment through the rolled-up hourly rate to cover the leave taken. That means that the exposure arises only where leave is taken early in the holiday year – in such cases the university would be obliged to calculate and pay for the holiday taken. This would then require the university to make an adjustment to the rolled-up rate of pay going forward to avoid paying for the leave twice.
However, workers are only entitled to be paid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations where they have specifically requested to take holiday leave. Employers can refuse that request and require the leave to be taken later in the holiday year. Taking this a stage further, universities could also designate the periods during which this statutory annual leave is to be taken. Employers are expressly given the right to nominate leave periods under the Working Time Regulations. Consequently, universities could designate four weeks in the summer vacation as periods of holiday leave for these purposes, ensuring that these were paid for in advance through the rolled-up hourly rate or spread the four weeks across the leave year, for example a week at Christmas, a week at Easter and two weeks in the summer. Further, the ECJ decision is limited to the position regarding leave entitlements under the Regulations – contractual holiday pay entitlements in excess of the four weeks minimum statutory entitlement can continue to be paid through an hourly rate irrespective of the ECJ ruling as it lies outside of the scheme under the Regulations.
The ECJ ruling does not therefore mean the inevitable end of rolled-up holiday pay. Universities need to monitor further developments when the case returns to the Court of Appeal and in the meantime may wish to take specific advice on the difficult issue of amending contracts to remove the rolled-up pay element or the steps necessary if such arrangements are to be continued, despite the ECJ ruling. Go back.
christopher.mordue@pinsentmasons.com
Age discrimination – final draft of Regulations reduces impact
This article applies throughout the UK apart from Northern Ireland.
The publication of the final text of the Age Discrimination Regulations means that universities can at last start planning for one of the biggest employment law challenges for many years. With just five months to go before the new law takes effect on 1 October, this must now be an urgent HR priority. The recently published ACAS guidance may prove very helpful in preparing for this change.
Cultural impact of changes
The Regulations are massively important because age discrimination is a routine feature of working life. All employers have compulsory retirement ages. Age and length of service are used to calculate redundancy pay and other employment benefits. Experience and qualifications are everyday factors in recruitment and promotion decisions. Managers frequently reject candidates falling outside typical or ideal age profiles for the job. Workplace banter about age, significant birthdays, and staff being "past it" or "over the hill" is commonplace. Age discrimination laws – which allow workers of any age to complaint about their treatment – pose a fundamental challenge to these existing employment practices.
Some welcome developments
The revised Regulations contain welcome developments for employers, giving the law a lighter touch than had been feared. A big surprise is the retention of the age-related multipliers in the statutory redundancy payment scheme. Despite previously stating that these would be scrapped, the Government now considers that these multipliers can be justified. Employees over the age of 65 will however be entitled for the first time to statutory redundancy payments, and the tapered reduction in entitlement between 64 and 65 will be abolished.
A related change makes enhanced redundancy payments lawful if they are calculated using the same methodology as in the statutory scheme. This removes the need for most universities to make radical changes to established contractual or ex gratia redundancy schemes. However, age factors not used in the statutory scheme are not protected in this way. Enhancements given to redundant employees over the age of 50, for example, will need to be objectively justified.
The rules on the lawfulness of service-related benefits have been considerably simplified. Workers with less than 5 years service cannot challenge such practices provided the employer treats all workers in the same circumstances consistently. The differential award of benefits for service beyond 5 years is legitimate if it "reasonably appears" to the employer that such practices fulfil a business need, for example, by encouraging loyalty, motivating staff or rewarding experience – a relatively easy test to establish. However, awarding benefits on the grounds of age itself or taking length of service into account in other ways – such as in redundancy selection – is potentially discriminatory and requires objective justification.
Where universities award additional holidays or improved sick pay entitlements after defined periods of continuous service, these practices can continue unaffected. Equally, incremental pay scales will not be unlawful – although there may still be a need for care in deciding where new recruits should be placed on the pay scale, ensuring that factors such as experience or length of service in the sector are only used where objectively justified.
Retirement dismissals
Retirement dismissals are another key area affected by the Regulations. Compulsory retirement ages below 65 will be unlawful, unless (which will be difficult) they are objectively justified. Retirement ages of 65 or over are not unlawful for now, although the government will review this in five years time. Although the upper age limit of 65 for claiming unfair dismissal is removed, dismissal for planned retirement at or above this age will be automatically fair provided that a specified procedure is followed. The employer must give at least six months notice of the planned retirement date and advise the employee of their right to request working beyond this date. Requests must be considered in good faith under a prescribed procedure. While the procedure offers employers much protection against unfair dismissal liabilities, the downside is that failure to comply makes the dismissals automatically unfair and tribunals can increase compensation by up to 50%. Procedural compliance is critical.
Crucially, the Regulations now contain transitional provisions under which these rules will apply in full only to dismissals on or after 1 April 2007. Without these, employers would have needed to comply with the relevant procedural requirements in advance of the Regulations actually coming into force, effectively requiring retirement notices to be sent out from this April. Universities will still need to take some steps towards compliance for dismissals occurring from 1 October this year - the transitional rules are complex but essentially require employers to make the employee aware of the right to request to continue working and to consider such requests.
Requests to stay on after normal retirement age
In another significant change, employees can request to stay on indefinitely or for a specified length of time after normal retirement age. This ability to make a limited request is helpful for employers, clarifying the employee's plans and expectations and providing more of a basis for negotiation than an open-ended request. However, where employers refuse requests, tribunals will have only limited powers to scrutinise that decision. Employers need not show any specific reason or justification for the refusal, and the requirement to consider the request "in good faith" has been removed. Notwithstanding this development, employers must still be alive to the risk of other types of discrimination claims – eg sex, race and disability – if decisions are taken on an arbitrary or inconsistent basis. There is also the risk of constructive dismissal claims based on a breach of trust and confidence, given that requests will be considered while the employment relationship remains in place. Universities should establish a clear framework for management decisions on these requests and it is probably easier to do this by identifying the exceptional cases when requests will be granted than by trying to list specific reasons why the request will be refused.
Policy decisions
There are also wider policy issues to consider. Some institutions may wish to positively encourage older workers to join them and to work beyond retirement. Others may allow workers to combine working beyond retirement with flexible working. We may also see an increased focus on performance management - relying on retirement dates as a convenient excuse to exit underperforming staff may not be the safest way to proceed.
Those without employment status cannot make these requests or claim unfair dismissal. But universities need to be very careful in their treatment of such groups. Unlike employees, "workers" will be able to claim that compulsory retirement is unlawful age discrimination. If the employer wrongly labels an employee as a "worker", the retirement dismissal will be unfair unless the procedure outlined above is followed. Those using casual or agency staff need to be particularly careful of these risks.
Recruitment and promotion will also be key areas of risk for universities. Experience or qualifications-based criteria need to be reviewed as they may be indirectly discriminatory. Institutions should consider whether these criteria are necessary and whether they are set at the right level – this is a classic example of the need, when new discrimination legislation is introduced, to reconsider long-established practices and assess whether these continue to have a clear and explicable rationale. One particular area concerns recruitment to lecturer posts, where candidates frequently fall into two main categories – those who are established in an academic career and are judged against their research and teaching track record, and those who are at the outset of an academic career and who are considered in terms of potential. The RAE cycle in particular can skew shortlisting to favour one group over another, and there is clear potential for claims based on age discrimination. Frequently, adverts and published selection criteria fail to make clear that one group is likely to be preferred over another. Without that clear audit trail universities may struggle to prove objective justification for any direct or indirect age discrimination.
There is little doubt that these rules will lead to an increase in employment disputes and tribunal claims. Even with the helpful changes in the final legislation, the impact of the new rules cannot be overstated. If you haven't already got age discrimination at the top of your HR agenda, you need to act quickly. Auditing your practices, changing contracts, developing retirement procedures, and training managers can't happen overnight. Time is rapidly running out. Go back.
christopher.mordue@pinsentmasons.com
We welcome your feedback, criticism and suggestions
If you have any comments, or if you would like further advice or assistance with any of the issues covered in this briefing, or for information about Pinsent Masons' National Universities Team, please contact Nicola Hart, Head of Education at Pinsent Masons.
Email: nicola.hart@pinsentmasons.com
Tel: 0121-260 4050
While our Universities Legal Briefing is copyright, you are welcome to copy or forward it to colleagues within the institution, and to quote from it as long as the source is acknowledged.
This briefing does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be taken before acting on any of the topics covered.
LONDON BIRMINGHAM BRISTOL EDINBURGH GLASGOW LEEDS MANCHESTER
BRUSSELS DUBAI HONG KONG SHANGHAI
T 0845 300 32 32 www.pinsentmasons.com