‘Judgment was handed down on 26 March 2021 by the Supreme Court in the case of Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley and others [2021] UKSC 10. It was held that employees working in Asda’s stores can use as comparators employees working in Asda’s depots for the purposes of an equal pay claim.’
Old Square Chambers, 26th March 2021
Source: oldsquare.co.uk
‘The sale and leaseback of a newly constructed care home was not a disposal of the entire interest in the care home, so as to trigger a claw-back of the VAT zero-rating which had applied when the property was acquired from the developer, the UK’s Supreme Court has decided.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th April 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘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.’
3PB, 29th March 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘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.’
4 King's Bench Walk, 4th March 2021
Source: www.4kbw.co.uk
‘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.’
Mills & Reeve, 6th April 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘In recent weeks, two long-awaited UK Supreme Court judgments have offered strikingly divergent reflections on the meaning and parameters of working time.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 1st April 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘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.’
UK Labour Law, 1st April 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘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.’
EIN Blog, 29th March 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Care workers who “sleep-in” are not entitled to the national minimum wage when they are in bed, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th March 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
The Guardian, 18th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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.’
UKSC Blog, 15th March 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 8th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘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.’
EIN Blog, 7th March 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 8th March 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the long running dispute between Uber and its drivers.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 26th February 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘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.”‘
Littleton Chambers, 3rd March 2021
Source: littletonchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025