Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester (in his corporate capacity) – WLR Daily

Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester (in his corporate capacity) [2015] EWCA Civ 399; [2015] WLR (D) 196

‘In determining the question of whether a person was a “worker” within the meaning of section 43K(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the words “terms on which he is or was engaged to do the work” required the person to have a contract with the person of whom he was said to be a “worker”.’

WLR Daily, 30th April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Contractual discretion – lost at sea? – Technology Law Update

Posted March 26th, 2015 in compensation, contract of employment, contracts, news, suicide by sally

‘Contracts often include terms that give discretion to one of the parties to make a decision affecting the other party. Does that mean that the party with the discretion can use it freely? Apparently not, according to a recent Supreme Court case.’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 25th March 2015

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Variation of employment contracts – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted March 17th, 2015 in amendments, contract of employment, employment, employment tribunals, news by sally

‘If employers want to vary a contract of employment they must first make sure that they have a very clear right to do so.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 18th February 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Gagging clauses are lawful and enforceable – Hardwicke Chambers

‘Periodically the topic of gagging clauses resurfaces in the press. In 2013 the revelation of large numbers of NHS employees entering into such agreements produced a mass of publicity. Interest in the topic duly stimulated, it led to recommendations by the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons that revised guidance from the Cabinet Office should require public sector organisations to secure approval from the Cabinet Office for special severance payments and associated compromise agreements where they relate to cases of whistleblowing.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 8th January 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Signing a New Contract Does Not Mean Restrictive Covenants Are Binding Absent Proper Consideration – Littleton Chambers

Posted December 11th, 2014 in contract of employment, contracts, employment, news, restrictive covenants by sally

‘Many large employers (particularly those who acquire other businesses over time) are faced with employees (often senior and important employees) on ‘old’ contracts with unenforceable, inappropriate or even no restrictive covenants. Quite aside from the potential difficulties posed by TUPE, remedying that problem often proves difficult in practice, and requires careful management.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 8th December 2014

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office – WLR Daily

Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1512; [2014] WLR (D) 501

‘The withdrawal, on operational grounds, of the claimant from his position in the diplomatic service as a British High Commissioner constituted a breach of his contract of employment by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but such a withdrawal was not a breach of the latter’s common law duty of care. The development of psychiatric illness suffered by the claimant in consequence of the withdrawal was too remote to foresee for a claim for compensation’

WLR Daily, 21st November 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Zero Hours Contracts – No. 5 Chambers

Posted November 27th, 2014 in contract of employment, employment, news by sally

‘A zero hours contract is not a term of legal art although a definition has been attempted in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill which proposes to insert as S.27A of the Employment Rights Act 1996:
(1) In this section “zero hours contract” means a contract of employment or other worker’s contact under which –
(a) The undertaking to do or perform work is an undertaking to do so conditionally on the employer making work or services available to the worker, and
(b) There is no certainty that any such work or services will be made available to the worker.
(2) For this purpose, an employer makes work or services available to a worker if the employer requests or requires the worker to do the work or perform the services.’

Full story (PDF)

No. 5 Chambers, 14th November 2014

Source: www.no5.com

Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers – WLR Daily

Posted October 28th, 2014 in appeals, competition, contract of employment, employment, injunctions, law reports by sally

Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers [2014] EWCA Civ 1373; [2014] WLR (D) 442

‘In considering whether to grant injunctive relief preventing an employee from working for another employer it was critical whether the grant of such relief would be tantamount to compelling the employee to return to work; and the question whether an employee in such a case who refused to return to work was entitled to continuing emoluments was an issue that essentially turned on the facts of the case. There was no rule requiring the employer to give some form of undertaking as to remuneration which went beyond the employer’s obligations under the contract, in order that the employer should be entitled to obtain an injunction.’

WLR Daily, 23rd October 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The Latest Guidance On The Enforceability Of Restrictive Covenants – No. 5 Chambers

Posted September 25th, 2014 in competition, contract of employment, enforcement, news, restrictive covenants by sally

‘Mugni Islam-Choudhury reports on the latest developments on restrictive covenants following the cases of Merlin Financial Consultants Ltd v Cooper [2014] IRLR 610, QB and Prophet plc v Huggett [2014] EWCA Civ 1013 (CA).’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 18th September 2014

Source: www.no5.com

Constructive Dismissal of an Employee Himself in Fundamental Breach of Contract – No. 5 Chambers

‘Charles Price reports on the case of Atkinson v Community Gateway Association (UKEAT/0457/12/BA) which concerns the approach in a constructive dismissal claim when the employee himself is in fundamental breach.’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 19th September 2014

Source: www.no5.com

EAT: employee who might be dismissed for gross misconduct may still be entitled to claim constructive dismissal – OUT-LAW.com

‘An employee is not prevented from resigning and bringing a constructive dismissal claim against a former employer by the fact that the employer may have been preparing a gross misconduct case against him, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 27th August 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Barristers’ clerks attack law firms over contract payment terms – Legal Futures

‘Law firms are imposing contracts on barristers they would never sign themselves, the chair of the Institute of Barristers’ Clerks (IBC) has said.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 18th August 2014

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Care workers take Hampshire home employers to tribunal over pay and working hours – The Guardian

‘Eleven female carers to the elderly are taking their employers to a tribunal claiming they were only paid by the minutes they spent with clients rather than their rostered working hours. The staff, who were on zero-hours contracts, allege that, due to the arrangements, they were paid less than the minimum wage of £6.31 an hour. It is understood that some of the employees at Apex Care in Romsey, Hampshire, where the firm was commissioned to provide the home care service by the council, believe their real hourly wage was close to £3.50.’

Full story

The Guardian, 17th August 2014

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Victims of trafficking empowered to seek compensation – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

‘The employee had been allegedly trafficked from Nigeria to the UK by the employer to work illegally as an au pair (Hounga v Allen and another). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set aside an award of compensation granted in the employee’s favour for unlawful discrimination in relation to her dismissal by the employer, having held that the illegality of the contract of employment had formed a material part of the employee’s complaint and that to uphold it would be to condone the illegality. The employee appealed. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, held that it would be a breach of the UK’s international obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings for its law to cause the employee’s complaint to be defeated by the defence of illegality. The case was remitted to the tribunal in respect of a complaint in relation to pre-dismissal harassment.’

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 13th August 2014

Source: www.halsburyslawexhange.co.uk

Solicitor was ‘employee’ and not partner, High Court rules – Law Society’s Gazette

‘A solicitor has won a High Court battle to prove he was an employee and not a partner at a firm subject to legal action.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 1st August 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Hounga (Appellant) v Allen and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court

Hounga (Appellant) v Allen and another (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 47 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 30th July 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Hounga v Allen and another (Anti-Slavery International intervening) – WLR Daily

Hounga v Allen and another (Anti-Slavery International intervening) [2014] UKSC 47; [2014] WLR (D) 353

‘A claim for the statutory tort of discrimination in relation to dismissal by an employee who had entered the United Kingdom illegally was not barred by the defence of illegality in circumstances where the application of the defence would be an affront to the public policy of protecting the victims of human trafficking.’

WLR Daily, 30th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Wrotham Park damages for breach of restrictive covenants and illegitimate competition? The Court says yes in One Step (Support) Ltd –v- Morris-Gardner & Anor [2014] EWHC 2213 – Employment Law Blog

‘In Wrotham Park v Parkside Homes [1974] 1 WLR 798, the Court declined to order a land-owner to destroy a property he had built on his land in breach of a covenant in favour of his neighbour. Instead, it awarded the neighbour damages in lieu of an injunction under Lord Cairns’ Act, in such sum “as might reasonably have been demanded by the [covenantee] … as the quid pro quo for relaxing the covenant” (815). The Court assessed the damages as a modest percentage of the profit anticipated (“with the benefit of foresight”) by the contract breaker. Employment lawyers have sought to exploit Wrotham Park for some time now, particularly following the seminal judgments of the House of Lords in AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, where it was held that in exceptional circumstances (where conventional remedies had no value) the contract breacher could be required to account for the fruits of his breach of contract.’

Full story

Employment Law Blog, 15th July 2014

Source: www.employment11kbw.com

EAT: clause in contract deducting a month’s pay for failure to work notice not an unenforceable ‘penalty clause’ – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 20th, 2014 in contract of employment, news, penalties, remuneration by tracey

‘A clause in a contract of employment permitting an employer to deduct one month’s pay in respect of a departing employee’s failure to work her notice period was not a “penalty clause”, and was therefore enforceable, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 17th June 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Vanity cases? – New Law Journal

‘Employees & cosmetic surgery: Sarah Johnson reports.’

Full story

11th June 2014

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk