UK: Employment Newsletter - September 2012

Last Updated: 15 October 2012
Article by Brian Gegg


The Court of Appeal has upheld the EAT’s decision in NHS Leeds v Larner that a worker who was absent due to sickness for a whole leave year was entitled to payment for that year’s unused statutory holiday entitlement when her employment terminated.

Mrs Larner was off sick from January 2009 until her dismissal in April 2010 on grounds of capability. On termination, NHS Leeds refused to pay her in respect of holiday accrued but not taken for the 2009/10 holiday year, arguing that she had not asked to take any of her annual leave, nor requested to carry it forward into the following leave year.

Taking into account the recent string of European cases on this issue, the Court of Appeal rejected the employer’s argument. Mrs Larner had a right to take at a later date the holiday she could not take whilst sick. She was also under no legal obligation to request annual leave whilst off sick, or to request to carry it forward to another leave year. Therefore, on termination of her employment, she was entitled to payment in lieu of her untaken holiday.

We are still awaiting confirmation from the Government of the detailed amendments to the Working Time Regulations to take account of judicial decisions in this area. One reason for this may be the delayed negotiations at European level on changes to the Working Time Directive. Issues to be clarified include the limit on how long employees on sick leave can carry over untaken holiday, and whether the right to carry over holiday applies to the extra 1.6 weeks’ leave provided by the UK Working Time Regulations (on top of the four weeks’ leave provided by the EU Working Time Directive). In the meantime, employers are advised to ensure that their sickness and holiday policies are as robust as possible, in order to limit potentially large claims by sick employees for accrued but untaken holiday.


The case of Drake v Ipsos Mori UK Ltd is another reminder of the difficulties involved in determining the employment status of casual workers.

Mr Drake worked for five years as a market researcher under a succession of individual assignments. He had no contract of employment, and was free to accept or reject work offered to him. Ipsos Mori was under no obligation to offer him work. When Ipsos Mori removed him from its interviewing panel, Mr Drake claimed that he was an employee and was therefore eligible to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

The employment tribunal concluded that Mr Drake could not be an employee because there was no mutuality of obligation between the parties during an assignment and from one assignment to another. In particular, assignments could be terminated by either party before they had been completed. Having reached this conclusion, the tribunal did not go on to look at other tests for employment status.

The EAT overturned the tribunal’s decision, finding that there was sufficient mutuality of obligation at least during each assignment to give rise to a contract of employment. Crucially, the company’s handbook stated that assignments were verbal contracts once they had been accepted, which had to be completed within a specified timeframe. In the EAT’s view, the fact that either party could terminate the contract at will was not inconsistent with the existence of an employment contract. However, the EAT has not ruled on Mr Drake’s actual employment status. The case has been remitted to the tribunal to look at the other tests for employment status, for example, the degree of control exercised by Ipsos Mori. Another key issue for the tribunal will be to determine whether there was an ‘umbrella contract’ in place linking each assignment in order to give Mr Drake sufficient continuity of service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.


It is well established that an employer can be vicariously liable for an employee’s actions if those actions are closely connected with the employee’s employment.

However, it is less clear whether this liability can extend to other relationships where the individual is not regarded as an employee. In JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust, the Court of Appeal considered a claim by JGE that she had been sexually abused as a child by a priest, Father Baldwin (who is now deceased). She alleged that the Bishop of Portsmouth was vicariously liable for these assaults. The central issue in this case was whether the relationship between a Catholic bishop and a priest within his diocese is sufficiently similar in character to an employer/employee relationship that it is just and fair to impose vicarious liability on the bishop.

The priest’s relationship with the church was in many ways inconsistent with an employment relationship. He had no contract with the church and there were no terms of appointment or other conditions other than those imposed by the Catholic Church’s canon law. The priest received no pay or financial support from the diocese, nor was he subject to the kind of managerial supervision or control normally exercised by an employer.

The Court of Appeal identified the following key factors for establishing whether an individual is in a relationship which is ‘akin to employment’: the degree of control exercised over the individual; how far the individual’s activities are central to the objectives of the ‘business’; and the extent to which the individual’s activities are integrated into the structure of the organisation. Consideration should also be given to whether the individual could be better described as an entrepreneur working as an independent contractor. Applying these tests, the Court of Appeal held that the priest’s relationship with the Bishop was sufficiently close to an employment relationship, even if it did not match every facet of being an employee. The priest was sufficiently accountable to the Bishop, particularly when things went wrong, and was central to the church’s objective of spreading the word of God. In addition, the priest was wholly integrated into the organisational structure of the church.

The Court of Appeal stressed that the concept of vicarious liability is not ‘infinitely expandable’. However, this judgment confirms that organisations may be vicariously liable for individuals who are not employees, for example, agency workers, casual workers and secondees.


When a client takes a contract in-house, TUPE may apply if there is an ‘organised grouping of employees’ whose principal purpose is carrying out the relevant activities on behalf of that client.

The transferring employees will be those who are ‘assigned’ to the organised grouping. In Edinburgh Home-Link Partnership v City of Edinburgh Council, the EAT considered whether two directors of Home-Link were sufficiently assigned to an organised grouping of employees for them to transfer under TUPE in a service provision change.

Home-Link assisted with housing matters for vulnerable people, largely for one client, Edinburgh Council. When the Council took the activities in-house, it was not disputed that TUPE applied to an organised grouping of about 40 employees who were directly engaged on those activities. However, there was disagreement about whether the two directors were assigned to that organised grouping.

The directors argued that in a case where an organisation was providing only one service, everyone employed by that organisation should be regarded as being assigned to the organised grouping. The EAT disagreed, holding that there was a distinction between the provision of the services and the maintenance of the corporate entity. It was clear that the directors’ role was largely strategic, involving, for example, preparing tenders, liaising with the Care Commission and dealing with the trustees. They had no direct involvement with delivery of the services to the Council. In these circumstances, the EAT held that they were therefore not assigned to the transferring group of employees.

This case highlights the risk of assuming that every employee who can be linked in some way to the relevant client work will transfer under TUPE. Employees whose role is largely strategic, with responsibility for the survival and maintenance of the business, may not be sufficiently assigned to the organised grouping and could be excluded from the transfer.


A restrictive covenant will only be enforceable if an employer can show that it has a legitimate interest to protect, and that the covenant is reasonable in scope.

Generally, this means that a non-solicitation covenant will need to be limited to customers and clients known to the employee during a specified period before termination of employment. However, in Safetynet Security Ltd v Coppage, the Mercantile Court has enforced a six month restrictive covenant which sought to prevent a director from soliciting anyone who had been a customer of Safetynet at any time during his employment.

Mr Coppage was the Business Development Director of Safetynet, a relatively small company providing security services, with one branch and around 90 customers. He had been recruited specifically to be the face of Safetynet, and was personally known by most of the customers. Safetynet brought a claim for breach of the non-solicitation covenant when five of their customers moved to Mr Coppage’s new company shortly after his resignation. In the context of Mr Coppage’s key role in Safetynet’s business, the court considered the covenant to be both necessary and reasonable in order to protect its customer base and goodwill. The outcome would probably have been different if Safetynet had been larger, and if Mr Coppage had not known all of its clients.


The Government has issued consultation on various issues relating to ending employment relationships, covering settlement agreements (the new name for compromise agreements), protected conversations and unfair dismissal compensation.

Proposals include:

  • Making offers of settlement inadmissible in unfair dismissal claims;

  • Introducing a standard settlement agreement;

  • A guideline tariff to assist settlement negotiations;

  • A statutory Code of Practice setting out the broad principles governing a settlement; and

  • A cap on the unfair dismissal compensatory award of 12 months’ pay.

  • Consultation closes on 23 November 2012.


The Government has issued its response to the consultation on charging fees in the Employment Tribunal. From the summer of 2013, it proposes to implement a two-stage fee structure.

The first stage will be an ‘issue fee’, to be paid by claimants on submission of their claim. The second stage will be a ‘hearing fee’, to be paid by claimants four to six weeks prior to a hearing. Fees will depend on the type of claim. Straightforward and lower value claims (such as redundancy payments or unpaid wages) will be designated ‘Level 1’. At present the issue fee for Level 1 claims has been set at £160 and the hearing fee at £230. More complex claims such as unfair dismissal or discrimination will be ‘Level 2’, for which the issue fee is £250 and the hearing fee is £950. Where there are multiple claimants, the fee amount will depend on the number of claimants.

Fees will also be introduced in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The fee for issuing an appeal will be £400 and the hearing fee will be £1,200. Other fees will be payable for tribunal applications, such as an application to set aside a default judgment. Employers will have to pay a fee of £160 when they submit a counter-claim in a breach of contract case, and £600 for an application for judicial mediation.

The fee remission scheme currently operating in the civil courts will be extended to tribunals for claimants who cannot afford the fees. Although judges will have the power to order an unsuccessful party to reimburse fees paid by the successful party, this will be at the judge’s discretion. It is clear that tribunal fees will become another area for negotiation in any settlement, and an additional tactical issue for both parties.


The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill currently being debated in Parliament now contains draft clauses which would amend the Companies Act 2006 in relation to disclosure and governance of directors’ remuneration for quoted companies.

These provisions would give shareholders a binding vote at least every three years on future remuneration policy, including details of the company’s approach to exit payments, as well as an annual advisory vote on the implementation of current remuneration policy. There are also proposals to claw back any remuneration or termination payments which are made in breach of these policies.

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills is evaluating responses to its recent consultation on the introduction of a statutory right for employees to request consideration of an employee ownership proposal. This follows a recommendation in the Nuttall Review of Employee Ownership.

Following Justice Underhill’s review of the employment tribunal rules, the Government has now issued its consultation on changes to tribunal procedure. Proposals include an initial ‘sift stage’ of all claims by a judge, tighter timetables for hearings, and revised ET1 and ET3 forms. Consultation will close on 23rd November 2012.

From 1st October 2012 the national minimum wage rate will increase from £6.08 to £6.19 for workers aged 21 and over, and from £2.60 to £2.65 for apprentices.

Pensions auto-enrolment comes into force on 1st October 2012. Implementation will be phased in over the next six years, starting with large employers. Staging dates are based on the number of workers in an employer’s PAYE scheme on 1 April 2012.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.