New Legislation

Employment case law updates | May 2020

Published: 13th May 2020
Area: Employment

Employment case law updates | May 2020

Here we take a quick look at some significant employment law decisions from the last couple of months

Vicarious liability – Morrisons Supermarkets and Barclays Bank

Morrisons Supermarkets

A 2018 case involving Morrisons saw an internal IT auditor Mr Skelton who, disgruntled that he had been subjected to disciplinary sanction, steal Morrison’s employee payroll data and put it on the internet. He also sent the data to three national newspapers, purporting to be a concerned member of the public. He was charged, and ultimately convicted of crimes under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and Data Protection Act 1998, which was in force at the time.

However, in the meantime, 9,263 employees of Morrisons brought a class action against Morrisons. They argued that it was vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Skelton, even though he was clearly acting outside of the remit of his role. The Court of Appeal decided that Morrisons was vicariously liable, but this decision was appealed.

In the recent case of Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court fortunately saw sense and overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, deciding that Morrisons was not vicariously liable for unauthorised breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 committed by an employee.

Barclays Bank

In a similar decision involving Barclay’s Bank, the Supreme Court decided that a self-employed medical practitioner was not in a relationship "akin to employment" with a bank that had engaged him to perform medical examinations on potential bank employees. The bank would therefore not be liable for sexual assaults allegedly committed by him. (Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13)

Carluccio’s furlough case

The case of Carluccio's Ltd (in administration) Re [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch) (13 April 2020) related to the administrators of Carluccios furloughing employees under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS).

When a company goes into administration, an administrator is appointed to promote its rescue as a going concern, or to realise its assets. The question here was whether the employees had validly agreed to the change in the terms and conditions of their contract of employment, such that they could be furloughed.

In what is no doubt one of many cases involving the CJRS, the High Court held that the employment contracts of employees, employed by a company in administration, had been varied by their explicit agreement to the administrators' proposal in a letter to furlough them under the CJRS. Note that this decision of the High Court pre-dates the new guidance from the Treasury, which provides that any agreement to furlough must be obtained in writing.

Homophobic recruitment policy comments made on a radio programme

In the case of NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI — Rete Lenford (Case C-507/18), the European Court of Justice has held that remarks made on a radio programme, that suggested a homophobic recruitment policy, are capable of falling within the scope of unlawful discrimination as defined in the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.

Employing someone subject to restrictive covenants – inducing a breach of contract

A former employer will often threaten legal action against a new employer on the basis that they have induced, or conspired with the former employee, to breach their contractual post-termination restrictions.

In an important judgement (Allen t/a David Allen Chartered Accountants v Dodd & Co), the Court of Appeal has held that an accountancy firm was not liable for inducing a breach of contract where it recruited an employee in breach of his post-termination restrictions (having received advice that the restrictions were probably not enforceable).

Contact us
If you have any questions please contact a member of your local employment team.

Shakespeare Martineau has launched a free legal helpline, with a team of experts on hand for any queries on family and private matters. We are also offering bespoke guidance on a range of other subjects, from employment and general business matters, through to director’s responsibilities, insolvency, restructuring, funding and disputes. Available from 10am-12pm Monday to Friday, call 0800 689 4064.

General advice in relation to COVID-19 can be found on our dedicated coronavirus resource hub.

SHMA® ON DEMAND

Listen to our SHMA® ON DEMAND content covering a broad range of topics to help support you and your business.

Our thoughts

All the latest views and insights on current topics.

Long COVID and disability discrimination

4 Jul

Corporate & Commercial

Long COVID and disability discrimination

The employment tribunal has determined that an employee was disabled for the purposes of […]

Read article Right Arrow

Six things for Indian businesses to consider before expanding to the UK

4 Jul

Corporate & Commercial

Six things for Indian businesses to consider before expanding to the UK

According to the UK’s Department for International Trade the proposed trade arrangement between India […]

Read article Right Arrow

Do I need consent to take my child on holiday?

4 Jul

For the individual

Do I need consent to take my child on holiday?

Read article Right Arrow

Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Simply Construct (UK) Llp

29 Jun

Education

Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Simply Construct (UK) Llp

Read article Right Arrow

Don’t waste money on space you don’t use! Re-gear

29 Jun

Real Estate & Planning

Don’t waste money on space you don’t use! Re-gear

Read article Right Arrow

Employment Contracts Vs Consultancy Agreements

27 Jun

Employment Contracts

Employment Contracts Vs Consultancy Agreements

Read article Right Arrow

Intervention of Khokhar Solicitors

22 Jun

SRA Intervention

Intervention of Khokhar Solicitors

Read article Right Arrow

How can we help?

Our expert lawyers are ready to help you with a wide range of legal services, use the search below or call us on: 0330 024 0333