Cross – establishment comparisons are generally to be permitted save in exceptional circumstances: Asda Stores Ltd v. Brierley & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 44 – 3PB

‘This Equal Pay claim has been ongoing for some time already (since 2016) and is set to continue for some time yet. In short, the Supreme Court’s Judgment handed down 3 days ago (26th March 2021) is focused upon a narrow point, which whilst of importance and interest to both parties and their advisors, in no sense has brought closure to these proceedings which are likely to continue to attract media attention as the layers of equal value litigation unfold.’

Full Story

3PB, 29th March 2021

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

R.I.P Gig Economy? – 4 King’s Bench Walk

‘On February 19th, the Supreme Court dismissed Uber’s appeal upholding the decision of the Employment Tribunal: a ruling upheld both by the EAT and the Court of Appeal. Lord Leggatt’s judgment confirmed that the claimant Uber drivers were workers for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations, national minimum wage legislation, and the Employment Rights Act 1996. In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal to determine the claims on their merits.’

Full Story

4 King's Bench Walk, 4th March 2021

Source: www.4kbw.co.uk

Asda staff win a major victory in their equal pay claim – Mills & Reeve

Posted April 8th, 2021 in contract of employment, equal pay, news, Supreme Court, women by sally

‘In a hotly anticipated decision at the Supreme Court last week, Asda supermarket staff won a major victory in their equal pay claim against Asda. Although the ruling does not mean the approximately 35,000 claimants have won the right to equal pay, the ruling does represent a big step forward and means their claim can continue.’

Full Story

Mills & Reeve, 6th April 2021

Source: www.mills-reeve.com

Mencap and Uber in the Supreme Court: Working Time Regulation in an Era of Casualisation – Oxford Human Rights Hub

Posted April 6th, 2021 in care workers, casual workers, news, Supreme Court, taxis, working time by sally

‘In recent weeks, two long-awaited UK Supreme Court judgments have offered strikingly divergent reflections on the meaning and parameters of working time.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 1st April 2021

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

After Uber: Purposive Interpretation and the Future of Contract – by Joe Atkinson and Hitesh Dhorajiwala – UK Labour Law

Posted April 1st, 2021 in contract of employment, employment, interpretation, news, Supreme Court, taxis by tracey

‘The Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 (“Uber (SC)”) judgment from the Supreme Court represents the final chapter in the long-running saga of determining the employment status of drivers who provided trips to passengers via the Uber app. As highlighted by Valerio De Stefano, the finding that the drivers must be classed as workers is part of a wider trend of decisions rejecting arguments that platform workers fall outside the regulatory scope of employment law. This blog considers key aspects of the Supreme Court’s reasoning, relating to the “purposive approach” and the role of contractual documentation in determining employment status, as well as some of the practical consequences of the judgment for workers.’

Full Story

UK Labour Law, 1st April 2021

Source: uklabourlawblog.com

Case Preview: BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – EIN Blog

‘On 16 March 2021 the Supreme Court heard the Secretary of State’s appeal in BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 29th March 2021

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Supreme Court: Carers not entitled to minimum wage when asleep – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Care workers who “sleep-in” are not entitled to the national minimum wage when they are in bed, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 19th March 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Supreme court to hear challenge to UK’s voter ID trial in 2019 election – The Guardian

‘The supreme court is to hear a challenge to the government’s decision to hold voter ID trials in 2019 in a case that could have implications for the wider rollout of the scheme.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 18th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Michael Foran: Shamima Begum, the Separation of Powers, and the Common Good – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The Supreme Court has come under significant criticism for its handling of the Shamima Begum case, decided on 26 February. Much has already been said in relation to the deference that the court showed to the executive, with some arguing that it was improper or even a complete abdication of the judicial role itself. This post seeks to clarify what precisely the court did and did not do in relation to the exercise of its constitutional duty to review the legality of executive action. It will suggest that the Court did not engage in any strong deference as to the nature of Begum’s rights nor to the balance to be struck between those rights and the common good. Such questions remained wholly within the purview of the Court. While the Court did pay due respect to the executive’s authority to determine and pursue the common good, this was subject to an assessment of lawfulness. Any deference, if it can even be called deference, was to the rule of law, given both the statutory scheme in question and the common law distinction between review and appeal. The determination of the scope of individual rights entails an exercise of judicial interpretation which seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the applicable legal considerations. It is not deference for the court to include constitutional principles such as the separation of powers within those considerations.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Case Preview: BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – UKSC Blog

‘On 16 March 2021 the Supreme Court will hear the Secretary of State’s appeal in BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 15th March 2021

Source: ukscblog.com

Mikołaj Barczentewicz: An empirical study of the gender of counsel before the UK’s highest court – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘During the live television coverage of the Supreme Court hearings in Miller (No 1), some commentators (and no doubt many members of the public) noted that almost all lawyers in the courtroom were male. That image of the UK’s “Supreme Court bar” (to borrow a US term), though not entirely accurate, highlighted an ongoing problem with gender representation. In a new study (available here), I analysed the trends of gender and seniority in counsel appearances before the House of Lords and the Supreme Court from 1970 to 2020 based on a unique dataset I created covering 5,041 lawyers and 2,714 judgments. I found that there are some very optimistic signs regarding appearances of the most junior counsel. However, gender balance among the more senior counsel is not as good and has not been clearly improving over the most recent years, which matters because counsel with more experience before the highest court dominate litigation in that court. The unprecedented representation of women among the most junior counsel in the Supreme Court gives nevertheless a reason to believe that the situation will improve also among the more senior counsel.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association , 15th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Daniella Lock: The Shamima Begum Case: Difficulties with ‘democratic accountability’ as a justification for judicial deference in the national security context – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘No doubt much will be written on the Supreme Court’s Shamima Begum ruling handed down on 26 February. The ruling has a number of notable features. In particular, a high level of deference was afforded to the executive which seems to contrast with the Supreme Court’s approach in high profile constitutional cases of recent years (such as, for example, in the Miller cases). A key feature of this deference is that it is offered in a national security context, where judicial deference has often played a role. This deference is partly justified by the Court on the grounds that Ministers are democratically accountable for national security decisions. However, as this post argues, the extent to which democratic accountability is a legitimate ground for judicial deference to national security decisions is questionable in light of current UK practice. This post raises three difficulties with relying on democratic accountability as a ground for deference in the UK national security context.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

For Whom the Bell Tolls: “Contract” in the Gig Economy – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘Are Uber drivers ‘limb (b) workers’ and so entitled to fundamental statutory rights such as the minimum wage and working time protections? In a decision of fundamental significance, six Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) upheld the original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that the drivers were ‘limb (b) workers. In reaching this conclusion, the UKSC endorsed the ‘purposive’ approach that had been set down in the earlier case of Autoclenz v Belcher by Lord Clarke.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th March 2021

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Shamima Begum and The Humpty Dumpty Supreme Court – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘On 26 February 2021, the Supreme Court refused permission for Shamima Begum to return to the UK. The Supreme Court judgment in the high-profile case of the British woman who left the UK as a 15-year-old girl to travel to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State, however, resulted in the Court effectively washing its hands of the case staying it until a full hearing can occur in future—a remote possibility. In the judgment, Lord Reed held the Court of Appeal was in error by substituting its own view of the balance to be struck between national security and the applicant’s rights. In so doing, the Court of Appeal did not give the Secretary of State’s assessment due respect. In this brief post, I wish to focus on a principal aspect of the Supreme Court’s judgment: the concept of deference.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 8th March 2021

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Shamima Begum: SSHD strikes back in Supreme Court – EIN Blog

‘Ms Shamima Begum was born and raised in the UK. She was a British citizen at birth and at age 15 she travelled to Syria with two friends and soon afterwards she married an ISIS fighter and is currently detained in poor conditions in the Al-Roj camp run by the Syrian Democratic Forces. She now wishes to return home to the UK to have a fair and effective appeal. She was deprived of her British citizenship on 19 February 2019 because the SSHD believed that her return would present a risk to national security. She applied for leave to enter (LTE) the UK so that she could pursue an appeal against the deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the only way Ms Begum, can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the UK to pursue her appeal. King, Flaux and Singh LJJ found that fairness and justice must – on the facts of her case – outweigh any national security concerns. But in a twist of fate, the Supreme Court unanimously held in favour of the SSHD and found that the right to a fair hearing does not trump everything else, such as the public’s safety. The court took the view that if a vital public interest makes it impossible for a case to be fairly heard, then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. Therefore, her deprivation appeal should be stayed until she can play an effective part in it without compromising the public’s safety.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 7th March 2021

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Litigation funding agreements are not DBAs, Court of Appeal judges confirm – Litigation Futures

‘Agreements with third-party litigation funders are not damages-based agreements (DBAs), three Court of Appeal judges – albeit sitting in the Divisional Court – have decided.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 8th March 2021

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

“You have reached your destination…”; Uber v. Aslam – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the long running dispute between Uber and its drivers.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 26th February 2021

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

‘Not a mini-trial’: Supreme Court explains the correct approach in jurisdiction challenges – Littleton Chambers

‘In The Spiliada [1987] AC 460, 465 Lord Templeman hoped that in jurisdiction disputes, “the judge will be allowed to study the evidence and refresh his memory of [the legal principles] in the quiet of his room without expense to the parties; that he will not be referred to other decisions on other facts; and that submissions will be measured in hours and not days.”‘

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 3rd March 2021

Source: littletonchambers.com

Law in a Time of Crisis by Jonathan Sumption review – beyond the lockdown sceptic – The Guardian

‘The former judge and renowned historian loses his cool on Covid and the culture wars.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 3rd March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Supreme Court to hear appeal next week over timing of judicial review challenges to neighbourhood development orders – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Supreme Court will next week consider whether section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which deals with legal challenges to neighbourhood development orders, should be interpreted to mean that the appellant’s application for judicial review was made out of time.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 2nd March 2021

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk