header-logo header-logo

12 December 2025 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8143 / Categories: Features , Employment , Whistleblowing , Liability
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 12 December 2025

238294
In the spirit of togetherness, Ian Smith rounds off the year with a look at precedent across the UK jurisdictions, umbrella companies & vicarious liability
  • The Supreme Court held that appellate courts across the UK should show respect but not deference to decisions from other jurisdictions.
  • The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that umbrella company employment arrangements can be genuine and enforceable.
  • The Court of Appeal was bound to follow precedent in allowing employers to be vicariously liable for detriments amounting to dismissal by fellow employees.

Employment law is usually quite well insulated from the remainder of civil law, but occasionally a case in another area has knock-on effects. This has happened this last month with the decision of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] UKSC 42, which actually concerned social security law, but in which the court took the opportunity to review the whole question of the relationship between the superior courts

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll