UK Supreme Court cases in 2011 | Employment Law Advocates London

As a rule, employment law cases do not reach the final court of appeal all that often. However, 2011 is a striking exception, with eight cases to be heard this year, including no less than four in the Hilary Term, between now and Easter.

The first, less than two weeks away, is the case of Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, concerning territorial jurisdiction in the context of European law rights. The Court of Appeal decision is discussed here. The following week, a nine-member Supreme Court will consider Home Office v Tariq, which deals with the circumstances in which security classified documents must be disclosed in order to ensure that there is a fair hearing at an Employment Tribunal, although the case clearly has far wider implications.

11th-14th April is a bumper week for employment law at the Supreme Court. Firstly, R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School is another case concerning the right to a fair trial, this time in the context of disciplinary proceedings which can seriously impact upon a career. The Court of Appeal has said that there is a right to legal representation in these circumstances. Then, the same panel of Justices will hear Parkwood Leisure v Alemo-Herron, a complex case about the effect of TUPE on collective agreements. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning in that case is summarised in the News section here.

Likely to be heard during the summer is Autoclenz v Belcher, an important case about employment status, which particularly deals with the question of when an agreement to be self-employed can be considered to be a sham. At around the same time is Homer v West Yorkshire Police, applying the principles of indirect discrimination to age in the context of retirement. The Court of Appeal, mainly for reasons of policy, held that disadvantaging people about to retire is not age discrimination. I discuss the decision below in Autoclenz here and Homer here.

The end of the year will see the infamous case of Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital, in which the judgment of the Court of Appeal is rather persuasive in its reasoning but undoubtedly controversial in its result, as it allows employees to claim damages for breach of contract beyond their notice period, albeit only in certain extreme circumstances. The Supreme Court may well be asked to clarify the earlier decisions of the House of Lords concerning the scope of the so-called Johnson exclusion area. In a sense, the final case, Jivraj v Hashwani, is not an employment law case at all but one which does require employment law to be applied and to which, it is respectfully submitted, it has not been done all that well so far. See my previous posts about Edwards here and Jivraj here.

Keep an eye on the News page for details of the final decision in these cases.