Can co-workers be liable for whistleblowing dismissals along with the employer? Yes, the Court of Appeal has said in Timis v Osipov. Mr Osipov was the employer’s CEO. Two directors decided to dismiss him after he made protected disclosures. The employee brought claims against the company for whistleblower dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He also brought claims against the directors (as well as the employer) under section 47B of the same Act for detriments which led to his dismissal.
Is it unfair not to offer a trial period for a more junior role even if the employee did not complain at the time? Yes, if it is a contractual right, said the employment appeal tribunal in George v London Borough of Brent. Trial periods allow an employee to try out a new role whilst being able to fall back on the redundancy package if the new role does not work out.
Is it unfair to pay an employee 50 % of full-time pay for being on duty for 53.5% of the time? Yes, the Court of Appeal said in British Airways v Pinaud, in a case which will affect around 600 similar claims pending against BA.
Is it fair to dismiss an employee in the transport industry who fails a drugs test? Not always, said the employment tribunal recently. Ball v First Essex Buses looked at the range of reasonable responses test in conduct dismissals and shows how an employer can come unstuck even in seemingly clear-cut cases.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed this month that Uber drivers are workers rather than self-employed, in Uber v Aslam. The drivers’ contracts described them as independent contractors. They had to undertake an interview and an induction. They had to perform the work personally. Drivers used their own vehicles, but Uber stipulated appropriate brands and presentation standards. In providing jobs, Uber controlled the key information. They would provide drivers with a passenger’s first name but no surname, contact details or destination. Uber had complete control of the fares. Financial penalties could be incurred for departing from Uber’s suggested route.
Is an employer responsible for the actions of an employee who has ‘gone rogue’ and deliberately posted sensitive employee data online? Yes, the Court of Appeal has said in Morrisons v Various Claimants. Mr Skelton was an internal auditor at Morrisons. He had been recently disciplined and held a grudge against the company. He took sensitive personal data relating to thousands of employees and posted it online. He then told newspapers it was there. The data included names, bank details and salary information.
Bermans’ corporate team advises individuals, families and their advisors on the formation, structuring and ongoing governance of FICS as an effective vehicle for wealth preservation, succession planning and tax-efficient asset management. FICs enable families to retain control over investment strategy while passing value to the next generation in a structured, long-term manner.
Working in collaboration with tax advisors, wealth managers and accountants we can help clients navigate the regulatory and compliance requirements relevant to FICs while also addressing key considerations such as confidentiality, control and risk management.
How can we help?
We would always recommend seeking professional accounting and taxation advise before deciding to put a FIC structure in place but, if you do decide that a FIC would be right for you, we can assist in all stages of its implementation, from incorporating the FIC entity, drafting its constitutional documents, and dealing with the transfers of shares both to it (in other companies) and in it (to family members or trusts).
The holiday season might have ended, but holiday pay remains a hot topic. In Flowers v East of England Ambulance Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal looked at whether voluntary overtime should be included in holiday pay. Employees should be paid their ‘normal remuneration’ when they take holiday. But is voluntary overtime ‘normal’ pay?
Mr Tabberer and his colleagues were electricians. They were originally employed by Birmingham City Council. Their employment transferred several times by way of TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006) over the years. At the time of the tribunal claims, they were employed by Mears. The employees were contractually entitled to receive an Electricians’ Travel Time Allowance, though the historical reasons for the allowance no longer existed. Mears varied the employees’ contracts to remove the allowance, saying it was outdated.
This includes taking instructions, preparing and issuing letter by 1st Class post.
The debtor will be advised to send any payments and communication to you directly.
Should you require us to enter into discussion or correspond with the debtor this would be carried out at a standard additional fixed fee of £30.00+VAT per item.
A fee of £10.00+VAT is chargeable for transferring each debtor payment received by us to you.
Stage 2 – Issue of Claim
*Both the Court fee and part of Bermans fee (as shown in brackets) are recoverable if successful
Should the debtor file a defence then this will be referred to one of our lawyers who will advise you accordingly. Any work carried out at this point will be chargeable at an hourly rate, as detailed later in this document.
Stage 3 – Obtain Judgment
*Part of Bermans fee (as shown in brackets) is recoverable if successful
The £ value range given above is dependent on the type of Judgment being requested:
In default of Acknowledgement of Service
In default of Defence
On Admission and acceptance of offer
On Admission and rejection of offer
Stage 4 – Enforcement
Writ of Control (enforcement via HCEO)
*Both the Court fee and part of Bermans fee (as shown in brackets) are recoverable if successful
Should enforcement be unsuccessful the HCEO will charge an abortive fee of £75.00+VAT.
Costings for other forms of Enforcement are available on request (as below):
| 
