header-logo header-logo

23 March 2022
Issue: 7972 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Ferry sackings cause shockwave

P&O Ferries will face expensive legal action for firing 800 crew members with immediate effect via video call, lawyers have predicted

The Dubai-headquartered ferry operator, which sacked the workers last week without consultation, is hiring agency workers to replace the staff on lower wages. It said the action was necessary because it made losses of £100m last year. 

The RMT and Nautilus unions are considering what legal action to take. Trade union law firm Thompsons described the sackings as ‘a shocking disregard of the most basic employment law.

‘The law states that if you’re dismissing more than 20 employees, you must consult with them. The larger the number of employees being dismissed, the longer the consultation should be―up to 45 days.’

Alex Mellis, of No5 Barristers’ Chambers, said: ‘In the short term, we may well see the trade unions seek an injunction in the High Court, although we would expect to see it imminently if it were to happen at all and it is likely to enter a relatively untested area of law.

‘This would essentially force P&O to carry out the consultation with workers that should have happened.’

He said the unions could also bring a complaint to the employment tribunal for failure to provide consultation, and the tribunal could order a protective award ‘in the form of a week’s pay for a period of 90 days, dependent on the severity and egregiousness of the breach by the employer, so we could see P&O needing to pay out up to 90 days’ additional pay for all 800 employees.’

Mellis said: ‘There are also grounds for these workers to individually claim for unfair dismissal...the pay-out will be capped at a year’s salary for every employee who takes this step, which may well be a similar amount to the recently announced “enhanced” redundancy packages that have been discussed.’

Issue: 7972 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll