Articles

3PB’s David Richards, Head of the national chambers’ Public & Regulatory Law team, and pupil barrister Dr Tagbo Ilozue have reviewed three new regulatory key cases, covering environment regulation, food safety and housing regulations, all handed down since the UK went into lockdown.

3PB's family law barrister Antonida Kocharova provides a case law update.

3PB's specialist family law barrister Michael George reviews economic disruption and financial remedy claims.

3PB Barristers’ regulatory counsel David Richards, Head of the national chambers’ Public & Regulatory Law team and pupil barrister Dr Tagbo Ilozue have published a digest of recent criminal law developments and relevant case law since the UK went into lockdown.

Is the law of vicarious liability still ‘on the move’? Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13

The 126 claimants in this case were all employees of Barclays Bank who, at the start of their employment between the late 1960s and early 1980s, were required to undergo a medical examination. Examinations were carried out by Dr Bates (now deceased), a general practitioner who was not an employee of the Bank but engaged as an independent contractor to provide this service, and did so at his home. The Claimants alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Dr Bates while undergoing this examination and brought a group action against the Bank for compensation. A preliminary issue was whether Barclays could be vicariously liable for his actions.

At first instance, the High Court found that Barclays had been vicariously liable. The Court of Appeal agreed, applying the five-part test in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.

Supreme Court Decision (Lady Hale) - the key issue was whether the relationship between Dr Bates and Barclays was ‘akin to employment’. The Supreme Court held unanimously that it was not.

The ECJ gives a preliminary ruling on the issue of worker status in the case of B v Yodel Delivery Network Ltd- case C-692/19

ECJ Referral

The tribunal referred the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
Does Directive [2003/88] [which was transposed into UK national law by the WTR] preclude provisions of national law which require an individual to undertake to do or perform all of the work or services required of him, “personally” in order to fall within the scope of the Directive?

COVID-19 Q&A: The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and potential Equality Act issues arising from it

Thank you to the 180 individuals who attended 3PB Employment & Discrimination Group’s first webinar on 23rd April 2020. We intend to provide another webinar on 2nd June 2020.

This article supplements the webinar that we provided and accordingly reproduces (albeit in more detail) the commentary provided on the day. As anticipated, the government’s guidance has been revisited and supplemented on several occasions since the webinar! Therefore this article has been updated to take account of revisions up to 1st May 2020. In addition, we have included further considerations and detail on matters raised in some of your questions.

Employment Tribunals in the pandemic: The Presidential Guidance, the reality, and the future
By Craig Ludlow

The Guidance
1. The Presidential Guidance issued in connection with the conduct of Employment Tribunal proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic was effective from 18th March 2020 .
2. At the outset of the Guidance it is stated that Employment Tribunals must have regard to it, but they are not bound by it.
3. It goes on to state that the parties are required to assist Tribunals to further the overriding objective set out in rule 2 of the Tribunal Rules (‘the Rules’) .
4. The Guidance strongly encourages Tribunals and parties to use electronic communication methods, including Skype for business and video conferencing technology where available to conduct hearings of all kinds, where doing so is compatible with the overriding objective and the requirements of the Tribunal Rules.

COVID-19: Frustration and Contracts of Employment

Sarah Bowen explains how COVID:19-will affect Frustration and Contracts of Employment. Frustration is a common law doctrine where a contract is treated as discharged by operation of law when an event has occurred which renders continued performance impossible, illegal or radically different to that contemplated by the parties when they entered into the contract.

3PB’s pupil barrister Mariya Peykova reviews the legal position in relation to holidaymaker claims during the Coronavirus pandemic.

Recent reports in the media suggest that some holidaymakers who have requested refunds have instead been offered credit notes, or deferred bookings. Mariya highlights the options available if holiday plans have been disrupted because of Covid-19, including package holidays, cancelled flights, accommodation and or other travel arrangements, insurance claims, and consumer credit rights.

Rakova v London North West Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0043/19/LA

Employees can often complain where they feel that their managers are not giving them the tools they need to do their jobs efficiently, effectively or productively. How does that situation relate to a disability discrimination claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments? This decision provides some guidance on the approach to be taken by the Tribunals in claims of disability discrimination by reason of a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants - [2020] UKSC 12
 
The Supreme Court held that there was no vicarious liability for a 'personal vendetta' by one of of the supermarket company's former employees.
Lord Reed concluded that motive was not irrelevant (and the distinction between acting on his employer’s business or for purely personal reasons was highly relevant). The Supreme Court concluded that the mere fact of employment giving someone an opportunity to do something is not sufficient to impose vicarious liability.