header-logo header-logo

27 February 2019
Issue: 7830 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit risks for workers

Employment lawyers warn of ‘significant impact’ of loss of EU guidance

Uncertainty about the interpretation of EU case law post-Brexit is threatening workers’ rights, employment lawyers have warned.

With just one month to go until the UK’s departure, questions remain as to how courts and tribunals will interpret case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) said this week in a paper, Brexit: CJEU. Post-Brexit, UK courts may have regard to CJEU case law but will not be bound by it.

‘Perhaps of greatest significance will be the loss of the preliminary reference mechanism,’ the ELA paper warns.

‘These will be referrals made by domestic courts and tribunals seeking guidance on the application of EU law… If such guidance is not available, then, whilst the court or tribunal will still be likely to reach a decision, it is arguable that such a decision will be deficient, or will be seen to be deficient, because of the fact that guidance was clearly required but not supplied.’

Paul McFarlane, chair of ELA’s legislative and policy committee, said: ‘There have been a number of seminal employment law cases where the guidance of the CJEU has been particularly significant, for instance, Lock v British Gas Trading Limited, which dealt with the application of the Working Time Directive to holiday pay calculations, or Dekker v Stichting, which simplified the tests that a woman complaining of pregnancy discrimination needs to satisfy.

‘The loss of such guidance will have a significant impact upon UK employment law.’

The ELA also expressed doubt about the practicalities of the government’s proposals to ensure UK workers’ rights keep pace with those of EU workers.

Meanwhile, the government published a document this week, Implications for business and trade of a no deal exit. For lawyers, it states, no-deal would mean ‘the loss of the automatic right to provide short term “fly in fly out” services, as the type of work lawyers can do in each individual member state may vary, and the loss of rights of audience in EU courts. UK lawyers and businesses would be responsible for ensuring they can operate in each Member State they want to work in.’

Issue: 7830 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll