header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 April 2017 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7743 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Locked down?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7743_pigott

Has the Supreme Court signalled that the law surrounding the Working Time Regulations has been settled, asks Charles Pigott
  • The Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal in the latest round of holiday pay litigation.
  • There are still some loose ends to tie up, but further assistance from the UK’s top court looks unlikely.

British Gas’s application for permission to appeal against last year’s Court of Appeal decision in Lock v British Gas [2016] EWCA Civ 983, [2016] IRLR 946 was refused on 28 February. The reason given was that the application did not raise an arguable point of law. So does this mean that the law on the calculation of statutory holiday pay is now settled?

The commission issue

Last year’s Court of Appeal decision was ostensibly about the narrow issue of whether the Working Time Regulations (SI 1998/1833) (WTR) could be interpreted in a way that was consistent with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the same litigation ([2014] All ER (EC) 1194, [2014] IRLR

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

Read All
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
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’
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
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
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
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
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’? Juries split on proof threshold
For decades, juries have been told to convict only if they are ‘sure’ of guilt. But what does that mean in practice? Writing in NLJ this week, Michael Zander KC, NLJ columnist and emeritus professor at LSE, argues the answer is alarmingly unclear
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll