Click the case name for better results:

Edwards and Another v Encirc Ltd (Working Time Regulations): EAT 23 Feb 2015

EAT Working Time Regulations – TRADE UNION RIGHTS – Action short of dismissal Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) Regulation 2(1)(a) and (c) – ‘working time’ Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 146 – detriment The Employment Tribunal having dismissed the Claimants’ claims of breach of the WTR and of detriment, the following … Continue reading Edwards and Another v Encirc Ltd (Working Time Regulations): EAT 23 Feb 2015

Uber Bv v Aslam and Others (Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither : Working Time Regulations): EAT 10 Nov 2017

Uber drivers are workers JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker ‘Worker status’ – section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’), regulation 36(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) and section 54(3) National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (‘NMWA’). ‘Working time’ – regulation 2(1) WTR The Claimants were current or former Uber … Continue reading Uber Bv v Aslam and Others (Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither : Working Time Regulations): EAT 10 Nov 2017

Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018

Uber drivers are workers The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers. Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The drivers accepted the control of tee Uber app: ‘Even if drivers are not obliged … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018

Premier Groundworks Ltd v Jozsa: EAT 17 Mar 2009

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS: Worker / Holiday PayMr Victor Jozsa (‘the claimant’) entered into a written agreement dated 1 January 2006 with Premier Groundworks Ltd (‘the respondent’) to provide groundwork services. By Clause 13 of the agreement it was provided that:-‘[the claimant] shall have the right to delegate performance of [ground works] services under this … Continue reading Premier Groundworks Ltd v Jozsa: EAT 17 Mar 2009

Basfar v Wong (Diplomatic Immunity): EAT 31 Jan 2020

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY The Claimant was employed by the Respondent diplomat to work as a domestic servant at his diplomatic residence in the UK, having previously been employed by him in his diplomatic household in Saudi Arabia. By her ET1 form she contended that she was a victim of international trafficking by the Respondent and had … Continue reading Basfar v Wong (Diplomatic Immunity): EAT 31 Jan 2020

Gallagher and others v Alpha Catering Services Ltd: CA 8 Nov 2004

The Claimants were employed to deliver food to aircraft at airports, loading and unloading food from the aircraft. Between loadings, they were on down time – not physically working, but required to remain in radio contact with their employers, and at their disposal. The employers argued that since the employees would get 20 minutes’ rest … Continue reading Gallagher and others v Alpha Catering Services Ltd: CA 8 Nov 2004

Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission: HL 15 Dec 2005

The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an employment. However the jurisdiction in sex discrimination cases was wider, extending to those who ‘contract … Continue reading Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission: HL 15 Dec 2005

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville: CA 25 Feb 2022

Whether an individual appointed as a panel member and chair of a Fitness to Practise Committee of a professional regulatory body, and who undertook hearings, was a worker within the meaning of regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘the Regulations’). Judges: Lord Justice Moylan Lord Justice Lewis And Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing Citations: … Continue reading Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville: CA 25 Feb 2022

Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3): HL 8 Mar 2006

The appellants said they had been had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sex by the TUPE Regulations. Their discrimination cases had been dismissed as out of time. Held: The employees’ appeals were dismissed: ‘A statute cannot speak with two different voices at one and the same time. The rule that section 2(4) … Continue reading Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3): HL 8 Mar 2006

Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd: EAT 18 May 2016

EAT Working Time Regulations – The Employment Judge did not err either in a domestic or a European law construction of Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 30(4) in holding that the Claimant was not entitled to recover compensation for injury to feelings for a breach by the employer of the requirement under Regulation 12(1) to … Continue reading Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd: EAT 18 May 2016

O’Brien v Ministry of Justice: SC 28 Jul 2010

The appellant had worked as a part time judge. He now said that he should be entitled to a judicial pension on retirement by means of the Framework Directive. The Regulations disapplied the provisions protecting part time workers for judicial office holders paid on a daily fee-paid basis. Held: The matter required to be referred … Continue reading O’Brien v Ministry of Justice: SC 28 Jul 2010

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others: HL 2 Jul 2008

The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations. Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was apparatus for use at work, though provided by a different company. The Regulations … Continue reading Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others: HL 2 Jul 2008

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: SC 27 Jul 2011

Car Cleaning nil-hours Contractors were Workers The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated benefits. The contracts were ‘nil hours’ contracts neither requiring nor entitling … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: SC 27 Jul 2011

Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd: SC 5 Mar 2014

The Court was asked as to: ‘the liability for Value Added Tax of a company which markets and arranges holiday accommodation through an on-line website. The outcome turns on the appropriate characterisation of the relationship between the company, the operators of the hotels, and the holiday-makers or their travel agents (which is an English law … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd: SC 5 Mar 2014

Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 16 Mar 2011

The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK. Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations were indirectly discriminatory. There was not an exact correspondence between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups and the protected … Continue reading Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 16 Mar 2011

Archer-Hoblin Contractors Ltd v MacGettigan: EAT 3 Jul 2009

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS: WorkerIn determining whether the Claimant was a worker within the meaning of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Employment Judge erred in taking into account whether the Claimant actually performed work or services personally rather than determining the issue by reference to the terms of the substitution clause. The substitution clause … Continue reading Archer-Hoblin Contractors Ltd v MacGettigan: EAT 3 Jul 2009

Grange v Abellio London Ltd: EAT 16 Nov 2016

EAT Working Time Regulations 1998 – rest breaks – Regulations 12(1) and 30(1) – Prior to July 2012, the Claimant had an eight and a half hour working day, paid for eight hours, with the intention that he take a . .

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville (Employee, Worker or Self Employed): EAT 5 May 2021

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘the Respondent’) appealed the Employment Tribunal’s (‘the Tribunal’) conclusion that the Claimant, a panel member chair of its Fitness to Practice Committee, was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) . .