Case Reports

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2018] EWCA Civ 2339, CA

12 December 2018

(1) The Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA 1998”) did not provide any basis for excluding an employer’s vicarious liability for the acts of an employee where an employee, acting as a data controller for the purposes of the DPA 1998, breaches the requirements of the Act.

Mutombo-Mpania v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd [2018] UKEATS/002/18/JW, EAT

5 December 2018

Statute reference: Discrimination — disability discrimination; definition of disability; burden of proof.

Roddis v Sheffield Hallam University [2018] UKEAT/0299/17, EAT

28 November 2018

An employee on a zero-hours contract was employed on the “same type of contract” as a lecturer on a full-time contract for the purposes of the comparison under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (the “regulations”). A zero-hours contract does not, of itself, constitute a “type” of contract for these purposes.

Reading Borough Council v James [2018] UKEAT/0222/17, EAT

21 November 2018

A group of female employees’ contractual right to equal pay was not affected by the promotion of their comparator. It was not the case that, where the comparator is promoted, the right to higher pay is curtailed. Once the conditions for the operation of the equality clause are satisfied, it takes effect and amends the female employees’ contracts so as to equalise them with their chosen comparator. The same reasoning applies where a male comparator’s pay is subsequently reduced.

James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] UKSC 40, SC

14 November 2018

A Chief Constable was not under a duty of care to protect police officers from economic or reputational harm when conducting litigation founded on alleged vicarious liability for their actions. Such a duty could not be derived from the implied contractual term of mutual trust and confidence, and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose it under the tort of negligence.

X v Y Ltd [2018] UKEAT/0261/17, EAT

7 November 2018

Legal advice privilege should be disapplied where the advice which was provided was as to how to cloak, as dismissal for redundancy, dismissal of an employee for making complaints of disability discrimination. Such advice crossed the high bar for establishing a strong prima facie case of iniquity capable of excluding the privilege that would normally apply to legal advice communications.

Afzal v East London Pizza Ltd (trading as Dominos Pizza) [2018] UKEAT/0265/17, EAT

31 October 2018

A finding that a dismissal was fair was wrong where an employee was dismissed, with no right of appeal, for failing to provide evidence of his entitlement to work in the UK, where, if evidence had been produced upon appeal that the employee was entitled to work at all material times, the employer could immediately have rescinded the dismissal without fear of prosecution or penalty.

Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake [2018] EWCA Civ 129, CA

24 October 2018

Care workers who were required to sleep at, or near, their workplace, and be available to provide assistance if required, were not working throughout their shifts, and were entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) only for the time when they were required to be awake for the purpose of working. This was the clear intention of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 (the “regulations”).

Mostyn v S and P Casuals Ltd [2018] UKEAT/0158/17, EAT

17 October 2018

A threat to impose a substantial cut in basic pay was a significant breach of an important express term (as well as potentially a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence), so that it was an error of law to consider whether the employer had reasonable and probable cause for repudiating the contract of employment.

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 49, SC

10 October 2018

Refusing a customer’s order for a cake to be baked with a message supporting same sex marriage did not amount to direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. The defendant’s objection was to the message, not the messenger/customer. No civil liability arose for the refusal to express a political opinion contrary to the religious beliefs of the defendant’s owners.

Pages