Authority watch

Pending (3)

Appeals awaiting judgment, including where an authority's correctness is in issue.

• Barton Turns Developments Ltd v Treadwell [2025] EWCA Civ 1466Appeal pending

  Appeal pending Barton Turns Developments Ltd v Treadwell UKSC/2026/0008 (heard 21 May 2026 with Rice)

  • Appeal pending Whether s.47B(2) ERA 1996 prevents an employee claiming against a co-worker and/or the employer for a detriment that amounts to dismissal
  • Appeal pending Whether the Court of Appeal was bound by Timis v Osipov, and whether Osipov was rightly decided
• Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1466Appeal pending

  Appeal pending Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice UKSC/2026/0005 (heard 21 May 2026)

  • Appeal pending Whether s.47B(2) ERA 1996 prevents an employee claiming against a co-worker and/or the employer for a detriment that amounts to dismissal
  • Appeal pending Whether the Court of Appeal was bound by Timis v Osipov, and whether Osipov was rightly decided
• Timis v Osipov [2019] ICR 655Under review

  Under review Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice UKSC/2026/0005 (heard 21 May 2026)

  • Under review Whether Osipov was correctly decided

Overruled, reversed, disapproved or doubted (17)

• Doane v Wimbledon Football Club Ltd and ors [2007] 12 WLUK 2Disapproved

  Disapproved by ABC v Huntercombe (No. 12) Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1161 (2026-09-08)

  • Disapproved That a transferor's vicarious liability to a third party for a transferring employee's pre-transfer tort passes to the transferee under reg 4(2)(a) TUPE: “the central flaw in Judge Robinson's reasoning” [50]
  • Considered Reg 4(2)(a) does not extend to the transferor's vicarious liability to third parties [73]
• HM Solicitor General v Warner [2024] EWHC 918 (KB)Not followed

  Not followed by R v Webster & Ors [2026] EWCA Crim 9 (2026-01-20)

  • Not followed Saini J's approach to “jury equity” as a principle of law, and his holding that a placard advising jurors of it was not a contempt: “not … a sound guide” [55]
• Timis v Osipov [2019] ICR 655Doubted

  Doubted by Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1466 (2025-11-14)

  The Court of Appeal held itself bound by Osipov but said it would have departed from it if free to do so.

  • Doubted That s.47B(2) excludes only a claim against the employer for its own act of dismissal (the construction at [91]) [4]
• Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice [2024] EAT 29Reversed

  Reversed by Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1466 (2025-11-14)

  • Reversed That s.47B(2) ERA 1996 barred the amendment claiming against the employer under s.47B(1B) for a co-worker's detriment of dismissal [89]
• For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37Reversed

  Reversed by For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 (2025-04-16)

  • Reversed That a person with a gender recognition certificate recognising their gender as female is a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, so the Scottish Ministers' guidance was lawful. The Supreme Court held that “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Act refer to biological sex.
• Courage Take Home Trade Ltd v Keys [1986] ICR 874Doubted

  Doubted by SPI Spirits (UK) Ltd v Zabelin [2023] EAT 147 (2023-12-06)

  • Doubted The reasoning that a settlement paid but not binding made further compensation not just and equitable: HHJ Auerbach recorded “misgivings” [35]
• Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton [2015] ICR 221Disapproved

  Disapproved by Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2023] UKSC 33 (2023-10-04)

  • Disapproved That a series of deductions under s.23(3) ERA 1996 is broken by a gap of more than three months between underpayments: it “derives no support from the express words” [125]
• E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall [2020] ICR 552Overruled

  Overruled by Clark and ors v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 386 (2023-04-06)

  • Overruled That the early conciliation number must be accurate, that rule 12(2) obliged rejection of a claim that lacked it, and that neither rule 6 nor the overriding objective allowed otherwise [48]
• Sterling v United Learning Trust UKEAT/0439/14/DM (EAT, 18 February 2015, unreported)Overruled

  Overruled by Clark and ors v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 386 (2023-04-06)

  • Overruled That an early conciliation number on the claim form must be accurate, so a form with digits missing had to be rejected under rules 10 to 12 of the 2013 Rules [48]
• Cockram v Air Products plc [2014] IRLR 672Not followed

  Not followed by Quilter Private Client Advisers Ltd v Falconer [2020] EWHC 3294 (QB) (2020-12-04)

  • Not followed Simler J's observation at [13] that at common law an employee claiming constructive dismissal must resign without notice: an employee who makes his objection unambiguously clear is not necessarily taken to affirm by giving a short period of notice [121]
• Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571Overruled

  Overruled by Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 (2019-07-03)

  • Overruled The majority's rule that the court may not sever part of a single covenant in restraint of trade [82]
• Vairea v Reed Business Information Ltd [2017] ICR D9Disapproved

  Disapproved by Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 978 (2018-05-01)

  • Disapproved That an employee who has affirmed the contract after earlier breaches cannot rely on them when a later act is said to be the last straw: tribunals should “put Vairea to one side” [52]
• Horner v Hasted (Inspector of Taxes) [1995] STC 766Not followed

  Not followed by Moorthy v Revenue and Customs [2018] EWCA Civ 847 (2018-04-20)

  • Not followed The assumption that the disability or injury must be one which prevents the person from carrying out his employment: “no warrant in the statutory language” [64]
  • Distinguished Horner concerned “disability”, not “injury”; the Special Commissioner's view on injury was obiter [64]
• Dickins v O2 plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1144, [2009] IRLR 58, CANot followed

  Not followed by BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak [2017] EWCA Civ 1188 (2017-07-31)

  • Not followed Smith LJ's and Sedley LJ's doubts about apportionment in Hatton v Sutherland: “we should follow the latter” [70]
• London Borough of Wandsworth v Vining [2015] UKEAT 0234_13_1812Reversed in part

  Reversed in part by Vining v London Borough of Wandsworth [2017] EWCA Civ 1092 (2017-07-28)

  • Affirmed The parks police constables' unfair dismissal claims fail: article 8 is not engaged, so the exclusion is not read down [78]
  • Reversed UNISON's protective award claim: s.280 TULRCA 1992, read compatibly with article 11, does not exclude it, and the tribunal's decision is restored [79]
• Hatton v Sutherland [2002] EWCA Civ 76, [2002] ICR 613, CADoubted

  Doubted by Dickins v O2 plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1144 (2008-10-16)

  Obiter. The Court of Appeal later preferred Hatton: BAE Systems v Konczak [70].

  • Doubted Proposition 15 (apportionment of damages for psychiatric injury): Smith LJ, obiter, “express[ed] my doubts as to the correctness of Hale LJ's approach”
• Quarcoopome v Sock Shop Holdings Ltd [1995] IRLR 353Disapproved

  Disapproved by Ali v Office for National Statistics [2004] EWCA Civ 1363 (2004-10-21)

  The Court of Appeal adopted Charles J's critique in Smith v Zeneca (Agrochemicals) Ltd [2000] ICR 800, and held that whether a claim form contains a claim is judged on the whole document [39].

  • Disapproved That a claim form asserting “race discrimination” covers every form of race discrimination, so that adding one is not a new claim: it cannot “be said to represent the current law” [51]

Affirmed or approved (11)

• Item Software (UK) Ltd v Fassihi [2004] EWCA Civ 1244Approved

  Approved by Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa [2026] UKSC 21 (2026-07-14)

  • Approved A director's duty of loyalty may require him to disclose his own misconduct: an aspect of the duty to act in the company's interests, not a separate duty [46]
• Shepherds Investments Ltd v Walters [2006] EWHC 836 (Ch)Approved

  Approved by Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa [2026] UKSC 21 (2026-07-14)

  • Approved Disclosure of a director's own wrongdoing as an aspect of the fundamental duty of loyalty [47]
• Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills [2016] ICR 252Approved

  Approved by Reynolds v Abel Estate Agent Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1357 (2025-10-27)

  • Approved s.18A ETA 1996 applies to the institution of proceedings, not to claims added by amendment [90]
• Taylors Poultry Services v HMRC [2024] EAT 102Affirmed

  Affirmed by HMRC v Taylors Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 956 (2025-07-24)

  • Affirmed “Work” in reg 30 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 means actual work; the workers' travel between home and farms was not time work [99]
  • Affirmed The Supreme Court's reasoning in Mencap on sleep-ins applies equally to travelling time [100]
• Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2022] EAT 69Affirmed

  Affirmed by Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1659 (2022-12-20)

  • Affirmed The tribunal's finding that the claimant did not believe there was a serious and imminent danger at work stood, and its answer on reasonableness was “unimpeachable”; appeal dismissed [60]
• Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd v Hall [2007] EWCA Civ 613Approved

  Approved by Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 (2019-07-03)

  The Supreme Court took the three Beckett criteria one at a time.

  • Approved First criterion: the unenforceable provision can be removed without adding to or modifying the wording of what remains (the blue pencil test). Retained, though it “can work capriciously” [85]
  • Considered Second criterion: the remaining terms continue to be supported by adequate consideration. In the usual post-employment case it “can be ignored” [86]
  • Approved Third criterion: removal does not change the character of the contract. “Rightly imported”, but better expressed as whether removal would generate any major change in the overall effect of the restraints; the burden is on the employer [87]
• Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper [2004] IRLR 4Approved

  Approved by Abrahall v Nottingham City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 796 (2018-04-19)

  • Approved Acceptance of a variation by conduct: the conduct relied on must be “only referable” to the employee having accepted it [81]
• Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust [2013] IRLR 854, EAT (UKEAT/0358/12)Affirmed

  Affirmed by Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 1626 (2014-10-29)

  • Affirmed The finding that the trust was entitled to treat the conduct as gross misconduct stood: the claimant's appeal was dismissed [24]
  • Considered The EAT's holding that a finding of gross misconduct does not make dismissal automatically reasonable, and its remittal on sanction, were not challenged (no cross-appeal) [15]
• Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd [2001] IRLR 144Approved

  Approved by McCarrick v Hunter [2012] EWCA Civ 1399 (2012-10-30)

  • Approved The factors for deciding whether there is a relevant transfer: whether there is an identifiable economic entity, and whether it has retained its identity [16]
• Dandpat v University of Bath UKEAT/0408/09Permission to appeal refused

  Permission to appeal refused by Dandpat v University of Bath [2010] EWCA Civ 305 (2010-03-01)

  • Permission to appeal refused Permission to appeal against the EAT's ruling on interim relief refused: the tribunal's findings did not suggest relief would have been granted on some lower test [18]
• Gardiner-Hill v Roland Berger Technics Ltd [1982] IRLR 498, EATApproved

  Approved by Dore v Aon Training Ltd (formerly Totalamber plc) [2005] EWCA Civ 411 (2005-03-18)

  • Approved Where a dismissed employee mitigates by setting up a business, the conventional method: calculate the lost remuneration, then add the costs reasonably incurred in mitigating [33]