header-logo header-logo

14 January 2010
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

EAT rules two jobs allowed if compatible

Individuals can be employed by different employers at the same time, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.

In Prison Officers Association v Gough [2009] UKEAT 0405/09_1712, the respondents were employed by the Prison Service and were also officials of the Prison Officers Association, the trade union for prison staff.

Mr Justice Silber considered whether the respondents were employed by the Association in “light of the functions they performed for them”, and whether they could be employees of both. He held that they could, as long as the jobs were compatible with each other.

Silber J ruled that it was proper to apply the test set out in 102 Social Club and Institute Ltd v Bickerton [1977] ICR 911 to the respondents’ work. These covered factors such as whether the payment was fixed in advance, like a salary, or whether it was decided at the end of the year; the extent and weight of the duties performed; and the size of the payment.

Delivering judgment, Silber J said: “There is no different question of principle which precludes a person having two jobs with separate employers at the same time provided they are compatible with each other.

“In the present case, it is not said that there could be anything incompatible with employees of the Prison Service also being employees of the respondent.”

 

Issue: 7400 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

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