Articles by ‘Gemma Ospedale’

In Wright v Lewis Silkin LLP, the High Court has held that the lawyers who were advising on the Employment Contract for the CEO of an Indian Premier League cricket franchise were in breach of their duty of skill and care in failing to advise on jurisdiction in the contract terms. The Claimant was dismissed and brought proceedings against the holders of the franchise in England; but there were challenges to service and jurisdiction and it took several years before he obtained judgment in the sum of around £10 million. He then struggled to enforce the judgment in India.

Readers will recall the recently commented on case of FirstGroup Plc v Doug Paulley and Mr Paulley, who made a complaint that the bus operator should be required to ask passengers with buggies to move out of the wheelchair space to make way for wheelchair users. A Court of Appeal found that the bus operator’s policy was merely to request this but not require it, and that this was not in breach of the Equality Act.

In Edwards v Encirc Limited the EAT has considered the meaning of “being at the employer’s disposal” in the context of the Working Time Regulations.

Charities have defended their use of zero-hours contacts, following renewed scrutiny of flexible working arrangements. An increasing number of third sector organisations admit to employing staff on a zero-hours basis, but most say that…

In Jinks v London Borough of Havering, the EAT had to consider who was the client for the purposes of a TUPE claim where a party contracts out a service which is then sub-contracted.

In Hafiz and Haque Solicitors v Mullick and another an Employment Tribunal made a wasted costs order against a solicitor based on an inference that an exaggerated schedule of loss drafted by the solicitor gave the Claimant unreasonable expectations as to what he might expect to receive if he won. In fact he did not – his claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal were dismissed. The company applied for costs against the Claimant on the basis of a massively exaggerated schedule of loss of around £90,000. On several occasions the Respondent has pointed out to the Claimant that his schedule was unrealistic and made several offers of settlement, all of which were refused.

In Basildon Accademies v Amadi and another, the EAT held that there was no contractual obligation, either express or implied, on a tutor to inform the school where he worked part-time that a pupil at another school where he also worked had made an allegation of sexual assault against him. There was no express term or policy which required such a disclosure and the EAT considered it was inappropriate to imply a duty to disclose into the contract of employment.

In Suhail v Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust the EAT has held that a GP who provided his services to a NHS Trust through a cooperative was neither an employee nor a worker for employment law purposes.

In Jackowlew v Saga Care, the EAT considered, where TUPE applied, whether the “client” or end user could dictate who is assigned to the organised grouping of employees for the purpose of the transfer – and concluded that it could not.

In E Ivor Hughes Educational Foundation v Morris, the EAT considered the time at which the obligation to collectively consult about redundancies is triggered. It held that this happened when the employer makes a provisional decision to close the workplace. Consequently the EAT dismissed the school’s appeal against a protective award of 90 days pay per employee for failure to consult over the closure of a school. The facts were these.

In Home Office (UKBA) v Essop and others, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on indirect discrimination claims. It has stated that Claimants complaining of indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 must not only establish that they were a member of a group disadvantaged by the indirect discrimination but also why the relevant provision, criterion or practice had disadvantaged them as a individual.

A case in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal follows on the theme of including non-guaranteed overtime and commission payments in holiday pay calculations. The case of Patterson v Castlereagh Borough Council considered whether voluntary overtime should be included by employers when calculating holiday pay. The Court of Appeal, while adopting a cautious approach, nonetheless concluded that it should. The Industrial Tribunal had concluded that voluntary overtime, which the employer was not obliged to offer and the employee not obliged to accept, should not be included in holiday pay calculations. However this was appealed to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (there is no equivalent of the EAT in Northern Ireland).