Legal News

Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd [2024] EAT 38 On 25 March 2024, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that Guy Matthews had not been victimised or unfairly dismissed. The tribunal found CGI IT UK Ltd had, after months of efforts to retain him, been left with virtually no alternative but to dismiss, as Matthews persistently alleged—without evidence—that a manager was undermining him. Judge Susan Walker, writing for the three-person panel, described this as a highly unusual matter in which a fair dismissal was upheld despite there being no written warning and no opportunity to appeal, noting the tribunal’s clear factual findings justified treating it as a rare case. Matthews joined CGI, an IT and business consulting services company, in May 2017. He later became a director and consulting expert within a team specialising in 5G technology, reporting to Steve Evans. Around May or June 2020, CGI...

Kaur v Sun Mark Ltd and Others [2024] EAT 41 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision confirms that a claim can be struck out after a liability finding where a fair remedies hearing is no longer feasible. Here, the claimant pursued £673,000, most of which related to her mental health, said to have been harmed by the respondents’ conduct and to affect her future capacity for work. Before the remedies hearing, she destroyed (or was untruthful about the existence of) a notebook and a mobile phone that might have been relevant to remedy. The employment tribunal found that her actions were ‘designed to frustrate the doing of justice’, making it unjust to allow the remedies stage to continue. The EAT dismissed the claimant’s submission that, because the destruction occurred after the liability judgment, it did not amount to ‘conduct of the...

Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust v Allen [2024] EAT 40 In a ruling released on 19 March 2024, the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that an earlier judge correctly found that Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust harassed Angela Allen because of her age on a single occasion, although aspects of two further discrimination claims did not fully withstand scrutiny. However, the panel determined that portions of two other discrimination complaints could not be upheld. Judge James Tayler, writing for the panel, said the employment tribunal should have clearly set out what any continuing discriminatory conduct comprised, and that it had not identified anything capable of showing a persistent discriminatory state of affairs. Allen began working for the Trust around 1997 or 1998 as a clinic manager in Worcester, overseeing roughly 19 people. Problems arose when a new contract for sexual health services...

In this issue: EAT: Melki v Bouygues and S Contracting UK Ltd—rule 37(5) applies to all appeals; omitting Grounds of Resistance pre‑30 Sept 2023 was not a minor slip, so time could not be extended. Employment tribunals: 2024/366 revises the 2013 Rules from 6 April—new response time restarts, practice direction compliance, and rule 92A for digital case management. Court reform: HMCTS shifts programme deadline to March 2025 to bolster capacity, refine tech and stabilise platforms. Status: MEPs back the Platform Work Directive, tightening status tests and algorithmic oversight; formal approval due April. Jurisdiction: Yacht Management v Gordon— GB claims permitted as duties started/ended at home base in Aberdeen. Immigration: HC 590 implements five‑point plan measures across Skilled Worker and family routes from April– June 2024. Tax/ Pensions: PAYE set‑off for off‑payroll income; Class 2 NICs consequential tweaks; lifetime allowance replacement rules and related regulations live from 6...

Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37 EAT Judge Simon Auerbach, on 14 March 2024, upheld a first‑instance tribunal’s decision that Rentokil Initial UK Ltd ought, at minimum, to have offered the claimant (identified only as M Miller) a trial stint in the new administrative post he had applied for, as this might have averted the need for the company to dismiss him. Auerbach J observed that, where a disability leaves a worker unable to remain in their current role and facing imminent dismissal, there is no legal principle preventing a trial period in an alternative position from constituting a reasonable adjustment in such circumstances. Rentokil states on its website that it is the world’s largest pest control business. He confirmed there is no rule of law barring such a step in cases......

Background On 23 February 2022, the Commission unveiled its proposal for a new Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. The measure seeks to create a corporate sustainability due diligence duty, obliging companies to conduct checks across their supply chains to identify and then prevent, mitigate, or stop actual and potential adverse effects of their activities on human rights and the environment. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive ( CSDDD) sits within a broader legislative framework on sustainable corporate governance alongside the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive ( Directive ( EU) 2022/2464), and complements measures in the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation ( Regulation ( EU) 2019/2088) and the EU Taxonomy Regulation ( Regulation ( EU) 2020/852). Which companies are in scope? As provisionally agreed in December 2023, the CSDDD was initially intended to apply to EU companies with more than 500 employees and a net...

Melki v Bouygues and S Contracting UK Ltd [2024] EAT 36 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment ranges across multiple points and can be challenging to digest. To grasp the framework within which the conclusion was reached, it is vital to remember the following sequencing and requirements: The claimant sought to lodge his appeal before amendments to the EAT Rules. At that time, to validly institute an appeal, the Notice of Appeal still had to be accompanied by a copy of the ET3 and the Grounds of Resistance. The claimant’s appeal against the Registrar’s refusal to extend the deadline for appealing was determined after the amendments to the EAT Rules had taken effect......

MOJ Tribunal Statistics (quarterly)— October to December 2023 What are the implications? Employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal ( EAT) are still dealing with very substantial caseloads. Actions implemented by the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales—such as appointing more employment judges and launching a new virtual region—have started to lessen the burden, but a significant backlog of claims remains to be addressed. In January 2024, the Ministry of Justice issued a consultation proposing the reintroduction of employment tribunal fees. A core stated aim is that fees could motivate parties to resolve matters earlier through Acas, avoiding the need to issue tribunal claims and thereby easing current pressures (for more information see: Mo J consults on reintroduction of fees in employment tribunals and EAT, LNB News 29/01/2024 69). The consultation is open until 25 March 2024. The plans have met with...

In this issue: Diversity and gender pay gap Status and worker categories Pay Tax Maternity, parents and carers Whistleblowing Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Equality of terms (equal pay) Employment tribunals Immigration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Parker Review Committee update report expands scope of targets for ethnic minority representation The Parker Review Committee has issued its March 2024 assessment of ethnic diversity within UK enterprises. For the first time, the Committee has broadened the review to include senior management data. The research now also spans 50 private companies in addition to listed firms. 96% of FTSE 100 companies feature at least one director from an ethnic minority on the board, versus 44% of private companies Ethnic minorities account for an average of 13% of senior management roles within FTSE 100 companies, with a target to lift this to 17% by 2027 See: LNB News 12/03/2024 25......

Omooba v (1) Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (ta Global Artists) (2) Leicester Theatre Ltd [2024] EAT 30 In Omooba v (1) Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (ta Global Artists) (2) Leicester Theatre Ltd [2024] EAT 30, Employment Appeal Judge Jennifer Eady decided the lower tribunal had been correct to reject Seyi Omooba’s complaint of religious discrimination after Leicester’s Curve Theatre and the talent agency Global Artists removed the actor from the part of Celie, a lesbian character, following controversy about a 2014 Facebook post stating that homosexuality is a sin. Eady J confirmed the tribunal’s view that the theatre did not act because of her beliefs. Instead, she found the decision was driven by apprehension about the consequences of the media backlash for the theatre’s finances and the agency’s survival......

Bharaj v (1) Santander UK PLC (2) Simmons (3) Robinson [2023] EAT 152 Employment Appeal Tribunal Judge Mary Stacey of the Employment Appeal Tribunal affirmed the employment tribunal’s decision to dismiss the claim brought by ex-senior manager Simran Bharaj after she declined to obey a court order to exchange witness statements with the bank shortly before a January 2021 hearing, in a judgment issued on 8 March 2024. Judge Stacey held that the claimant had sufficiently surmounted the personal circumstances that had hampered her preparation of the litigation, and that she had managed to re-draft her witness statement......

Niasse v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 179 The taxpayer, Mr N, was a professional footballer with Lokomotiv Moscow who transferred to Everton FC in 2016. To conduct the transfer negotiations, he engaged an agent under a standard representation contract. The taxpayer, the agent and Everton then entered a tripartite contract under which the agent would act for both the taxpayer and the club in the negotiations and would provide further services to the club whilst Mr N was employed by it. That tripartite arrangement specified that the fees payable by Mr N to the agent in respect of the transfer were to be paid by Everton. It was not contested that Everton’s payment of the agent’s fees constituted either employment income or......

Hilton Foods Solutions v Wright [2024] EAT 28 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment turns on a single issue of interpretation: what must an employee do to be treated as having “sought” parental leave so as to gain protection from dismissal under the MAPLE Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3312, reg 20, as enforced by section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996? HHJ Tayler found that whether an individual has “sought” parental leave is a matter for the employment tribunal to decide on the facts, applying the ordinary meaning of the word “sought”, without any special gloss. Serving notice to take parental leave in accordance with paragraphs 1(b) and 3 of Schedule 2 to the MAPLE Regulations will, save in exceptional circumstances, generally show that the employee has “sought” to take parental leave; however, it is not the sole means by which it can be...

Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice [2024] EAT 29 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is technically intricate because it engages with: construction of ERA 1996, s 47B; and consideration of what does and does not constitute the binding ratio of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Timis. Mr Justice Bourne holds that Timis is binding only so far as it establishes that ERA 1996, s 47B(2) does not bar a worker from advancing a detriment complaint against fellow employees where they bear responsibility for the dismissal itself. To the extent the case was read as indicating that, consequently, the employer could be vicariously liable, Bourne J considers that conclusion was not required for the disposal of the appeal and therefore is not part of the binding ratio. Rather, Bourne J gives prominence to Lady Justice Simler’s analysis in the EAT in Timis, with...

In this issue: Spring Budget 2024 Pensions Tax Protected characteristics Maternity, parents and carers Industrial action Unfair dismissal Employment agencies and businesses Data protection and employee information Lex Talk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Spring Budget 2024 Spring Budget 2024—key Employment announcements On 6 March 2024, as part of the Spring Budget 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, confirmed a two percentage point reduction in the main employee National Insurance rate, moving from 10% to 8% from 6 April 2024. Notably, the mooted reduction of the basic rate of income tax from 20% to 19% did not feature in the statement. See: LNB News 06/03/2024 104. Pensions TPR issues reminder to employers to comply with enrolment duty The Pensions Regulator ( TPR) has...

Ali v (1) Reason (2) Nott CLCC ( Claim No J00CL858), 9 February 2024 Background This dispute sits within a wave of employment tribunal litigation by claimants described as holding 'gender critical' beliefs. In essence, proponents contend that biological sex is fixed and separate from gender identity, and that blurring these categories risks harm to women and undermines their rights. Since 2021, such beliefs have been recognised as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 ( Eq A 2010). Unlike many gender critical cases, this claim did not proceed under the Eq A’s employment provisions; instead, it relied on the distinct rules governing membership associations. Such actions are issued in the county court, rather than the employment tribunal. Accordingly, the county court is the proper venue for disputes of this kind. Crucially, though the Eq A 2010’s...

Donkor- Baah v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust and others [2024] EAT 23 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is noteworthy as it clarifies the reach of the right to equal treatment in regulation 5 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 ( AWR 2010). This judgment is of interest because it addresses how far that entitlement extends. It explains that, once the right arises, parity under reg 5 on terms and conditions concerning pay and working time, equivalent to a direct hire, exists only for the span of an assignment, when the agency worker is actually engaged by the hirer. The right does not extend to a wider guarantee against being treated less favourably than the hirer’s employees or workers in the periods between assignments. In light of this, practitioners should pay very close attention to what amounts to an agency...

Accattatis v Fortuna Group ( London) Ltd [2024] EAT 25 On 29 February 2024, the EAT held that the earlier tribunal must revisit Francesco Accattatis’ claims that his dismissal from Fortuna Group ( London) Ltd was unfair on health and safety grounds, following repeated requests to work remotely and to be placed on furlough during the pandemic. Judge Simon Auerbach noted that, although the tribunal possessed the material needed to assess the significance of the claimant’s knowledge that some colleagues had been allowed to work from home, and of the guidance he said he received from the HMRC helpline about furlough, he could not infer that those points were specifically addressed by the tribunal. The judgment records that Accattatis joined Fortuna Group in May 2018 as a sales and project marketing coordinator. In March 2020, as the pandemic emerged, he asked to work from home......

In this issue: Employment tribunals Status and worker categories Benefits Protected characteristics Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Data protection and employee information Industrial action Confidentiality, duties and restrictions: enforcement Corporate governance Settlement Unfair dismissal Immigration Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Employment tribunals Tribunal compensation limits—increased figures applying from 6 April 2024 From 6 April 2024, uprated limits for employment tribunal awards take effect. The cap on a week’s pay—used when working out various sums such as statutory redundancy payments and the basic award for unfair dismissal—moves to £700 (previously £643). In addition, the upper limit for the unfair dismissal compensatory award rises to £115,115 (up from £105,707). These revisions are made by the Employment Rights ( Increase of Limits) Order 2024, SI...

Legal Service Board report: The misuse of non-disclosure agreements: call for evidence themes and summary of evidence The LSB reported that clients and their legal advisers deploy these binding agreements to hide conduct that is lawful yet unethical, including bullying, settlements involving consumer products, and conflicts in construction and building. Numerous respondents also indicated NDAs are used across workplaces to conclude employment disputes. Matthew Hill, the LSB’s outgoing chief executive, voiced his gratitude to those who contributed to the review, which ran from May to July, noting that the exercise helped to illuminate a corner of legal practice that is, by its very nature, hidden. He further observed that the recurrent patterns set out in the report demonstrate that, when NDAs are misused, the consequences for people’s lives can be devastating......